Car Sharing in the Netherlands

CAR SHARING IN THE NETHERLANDS

‘THE HISTORY AND PROSPECTS OF A TURBULENT MARKET’

Name: Willem Jan van Amerongen

Student number: 10627944

Date: 18/07/2014 Status: Final

Study: MSc. in Business Administration – Marketing Track

Institution: University of Amsterdam – Amsterdam Business School

Supervisor: dhr. prof. dr. J.H.J.P Tettero

Second Supervisor: drs. ing. A.C.J. Meulemans

Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ------2

ABSTRACT ------7

I. INTRODUCTION ------8

I. THE RANDSTAD REGION ------9

Excessive use of public space ------10

Congestion ------10

Impact on quality of life------11

Impact on environmental quality------11

Impact on safety ------12

II. CAR SHARING ------14

Commercial car sharing ------14

Private car sharing ------15

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ------16

I. FACTS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION IN THE RANDSTAD REGION ------17

Transportation options in the Randstad region ------17

Transportation options’ market share ------17

II. CLUSTERS IN THE TRANSPORTATION MARKET ------19

Mentality Model by Motivaction ------19

Motives for car use and possession ------24

III. FUTURE TRENDS ------26

III. METHOD------27

I. DATA COLLECTION ------27

Interview technic ------29

II. DATA ANALYSIS ------30

IV. RESULTS ------31

I. THE BEGINNING (INTERNATIONAL) ------32

II. BEFORE 1993 ------33

Witkar ------33

III. ‘THE FIRST MOMENTUM’ (1993 – 1996) ------35

The General Partnership ------35

Comparison between concepts ------38

General Partnership (Maatschap) ------38

Membership car sharing (Greenwheels) ------39

Coupons ------43

Update ------44

IV. BETWEEN 1996 AND 2003 ------45

Evaluation ------45

V. THE INTERVAL PERIOD (2003 – 2010) ------49

Trends ------51

The sharing economy ------51

Availability of Internet ------53

Economical recession ------54

Scarcity of parking lots ------55

Millenials ------56

New initiatives ------58

Snappcar------58

Car2Go ------61

Evaluation of Car2Go in Amsterdam ------64

VI. ‘THE SECOND MOMENTUM’ (SINCE 2010) ------70

V. DISCUSSION ------74

Do consumers want to share? ------75

Are the consumer’s requirements met?------76

One-Way ------76

Peer-to-Peer ------76

Classic ------77

For which consumers (geographically) is car sharing an option? ------77

One-Way ------77

Peer-to-Peer ------78

Classic ------78

Which consumers are generally interested in car sharing? ------79

Mentality Model by Motivaction ------79

Generation Model ------81

What are the opinions of consumers about car sharing? ------82

Car sharing in general ------82

Peer-to-Peer ------83

Classic ------84

Is the ‘Second Momentum’ of car sharing different from the ‘First Momentum’? ----- 85

First Momentum ------85

Second Momentum ------85

In which phase of the product life cycle (Levitt) were both momenta? ------85

First Momentum ------85

Second Momentum ------86

Is the government more supportive? ------87

Is the business more profitable than it was before? ------88

First Momentum ------88

Second Momentum ------89

Is car sharing able to solve the problems mentioned in the introduction? ------90

Excessive use of public space ------90

Congestion, Air pollution and Safety ------91 4

Traffic Noise and Safety ------93

What do the interviewed key persons think about the future of car sharing? ------93

Hendrik-Jan Glerum – Snappcar ------93

Henry Mentink – MyWheels ------94

Iris Kerremans – DIVV, Amsterdam ------94

Sacha Oerlemans – Qpark ------95

Conclusion ------96

VI. CONCLUSION ------97

I. HOW DID CAR SHARING DEVELOP OVER THE PAST YEARS? ------97

Conclusion ------98

II. WHICH CAR-SHARING MODEL HAS THE BEST CHANCES OF SUCCESS IN COMING YEARS? ----- 98

Classic ------99

Peer-to-Peer ------99

One-Way ------99

III. CONCLUDING ------100

IV. RECCOMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ------101

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INDUSTRY ------102

I. ‘THE COLLABORATION’ ------102

II. ‘GVB AS MARKET LEADER’ ------102

III. ‘Q-PARK AS TRANSITION STATION’ ------103

VIII. REFERENCES ------104

IX. APPENDICES ------110

I. GENERAL INTERVIEW TOPICS ------110

II. INTERVIEW HENDRIK-JAN GLERUM (SNAPPCAR) ------111

III. INTERVIEW HENRY MENTINK (MYWHEELS EN STICHTING AUTODELEN) ------115

IV. INTERVIEW SACHA OERLEMANS (Q-PARK) ------119

V. INTERVIEW JAN VOSKAMP ------125 5

VI. INTERVIEW CAROLE SOMBROEK ------130

VII. INTERVIEW IRIS KERREMANS (DIVV) ------133

VIII. MAATSCHAPSOVEREENKOMST ‘AUTOMATEN’ ------145

Abstract

In the Netherlands, the phenomenon of car sharing is taking place since the 90’s. This paper explains how car sharing went from a ‘first momentum’, in which many car sharing initiatives were founded, via an interval period towards a ‘second momentum’ that is taking place at this moment (2014). Also in this ‘second momentum’ new initiatives were established and more people started to share a car. The actual status of car sharing, the societal trends of the last and upcoming decades are combined to give an overview about the future of car sharing. This shows that the market of car sharing is –despite the momentum– still uncertain and the question remains if car sharing will be able to leave the ‘introduction phase’ and enter the ‘growth phase’.

All different models of car sharing are discussed and evaluated to determine which model has the most chance of success in the future. One of the most important conclusions of this study is that car sharing will never be a success in the Netherlands as a whole, but only seems possible in the Randstad region (Amsterdam, Rotterdam,

The Hague and Utrecht). This is because the conditions needed for car sharing can only be found in that region, but more even more important; the consumer segments that might be interested in car sharing are also largely found in the Randstad region and less in the other parts of the Netherlands.

I. Introduction

In many countries of the world, the use of cars has grown rapidly during the past decades. The car has become a massification product. Car ownership is still expected

to increase. In general, as GDP rises, car ownership rises and has a negative influence on public transport use. It is likely that this will lead to increases in motorization in cities in the coming decades (May & Marsden, 2010).

As shown in the figure below, the number of privately owned passenger cars has increased rapidly in the Netherlands since the 1950s (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Number of cars in the Netherlands, 1900 – 1988, (Staal, 2003)

This huge growth has several effects on society. The following effects and their impact on the Randstad region, will be discussed in this chapter:

- Excessive use of public space

- Accessibility due to congestion

- Impact on quality of life (traffic noise)

- Impact on environmental quality (air pollution, climate change)

- Impact on safety 8

First, the Randstad region will be discussed.

I. The Randstad Region

The Randstad region is a conurbation in the Netherlands and is the major economic

core of the Netherlands. The region covers an area of 8.287 square kilometer. With

approximately 7.1 million inhabitants, the Randstad region is one of the most densely

populated areas of the Netherlands (1500/km2) and one of the largest conurbations in

Europe. Four big cities form the core of the Randstad region: Amsterdam, The Hague,

Rotterdam and Utrecht, surrounding a number of medium-sized towns, such as

Almere, Leiden, Delft and Haarlem.

Figure 2: The Randstad region, the Netherlands

Excessive use of public space

In the four big cities of The Netherlands (Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and

Utrecht), the total number of registered personal cars is 754.273. The total number of inhabitants of these cities is approximately 2.2 million. This means that approximately

34% of the population owns a car (CBS Statline, 2011). In Amsterdam, 57% of the households own at least one car (Factsheet DIVV, 2013).

In the Netherlands, cars are used for 1.5 hours daily on average. This means cars are parked for 94% of the time (Factsheet Ministry of Infrastructure, 2013).

In Amsterdam, there are 228.764 registered personal cars, of which 85% is parked on the street (Amsterdam in cijfers, 2013). These numbers have a huge impact on the use of space in the city. From all space used for traffic (public transport, pedestrians, bicycle lanes, car parking lots and car lanes) is 60% used for cars, of which 40% is used for parking cars (Amsterdam-Centrum district administration publication, 2009).

Congestion

Congestion has an extensive spatial impact and poses a very significant cost on the economies of countries. The majority of congestion costs occur in urban areas, however, also on inter-urban routes congestion can occur (May & Marsden, 2010).

TNO calculated that the total costs of congestion are between 638 million and 888 million euro. This includes direct costs (cargo) and indirect costs (production delay).

Impact on quality of life

One of the most important negative effects of car use on the quality of life is traffic noise. Millions of people in Europe are affected by traffic noise. Noise can disturb sleep patterns, affect cognitive functioning and cause cardiovascular problems. As an effect, noise is very costly to society (den Boer and Schroten, 2007). The RIVM calculated that in the year 2000, approximately 600 people died from a heart attack caused by traffic noise. 110.000 – 270.000 people suffer from high blood pressure due to traffic noise and approximately 2.2 million people encounter serious nuisance

(VROM, 2010).

Impact on environmental quality

Cars have a huge effect on the air quality of the region. The WHO suggests that poor air quality brings forward around 2 million deaths per year worldwide (WHO, 2009).

Although most of these deaths fall in developing countries, the effects of air pollution in the Randstad region should not be underestimated.

The main pollutants of concern are particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and oxides of nitrogen. The WHO measured a PM10 concentration of 40 ug/m3 in Amsterdam

(UNAIDS, 2006). This is similar to other European and American cities. The GGD in

Amsterdam measured PM10 values from 1997 to 2007 and concluded that the level of

PM10 ug/m3 has remained the same over the years (see figure 3).

Figure 3: PM10 concentration in Amsterdam, 1997 - 2007, (GGD, 2008)

Another very important effect that decreases the quality of environment is climate change. Although climate experts still haven’t found a consensus whether human

CO2 emission is a cause of climate change, there is a consensus that the climate is changing (global warming). If human CO2 emission would contribute to climate change, car use is a big contributor to human CO2 emission. Transport accounts for

26% of global CO2 emissions and is one of the few industrial sectors where emissions are still growing (Chapman, 2007).

Impact on safety

The World Health Organization estimated that in 2004 almost 1.2 million people were killed in road traffic accidents, and approximately 50 million people were injured. In the Netherlands the number of road traffic fatalities is gradually declining since 1973.

In 2003, 1088 people were killed, while in 2012, 650 people were killed by road traffic accidents (SWOV, 2013). The number of seriously injured people is much

higher. In 2011, 20.100 people were seriously injured due to road traffic accidents.

This number is, in contrast to the number of road traffic fatalities, not declining, as shown in figure 4.

Figure 4: Seriously injured people 1993 - 2011, (SWOV, 2013)

Al these negative effects combined give a good overview of the transport related problems that modern society has to deal with. Several cities and countries are trying to find solutions for these problems.

Could car sharing ease these problems?

II. Car sharing

Car sharing is a phenomenon that fits well in the “sharing economy”, which is based

on using instead of owning. Cars are no longer for private possession, but cars are shared among other people or families. This happens both in commercial a commercial context as in private context. Both versions will be explained.

Commercial car sharing

Several companies provide commercial car sharing in the Randstad region. Those companies can be divided in two groups:

I. Classic

II. OneWay

I. Classic

The ‘Classic’ car sharing companies offer a subscription with a monthly fee. People with a subscription reserve a car mostly one day in advance. The cars are parked on dedicated parking spots and are collected and returned at the same spot. A reservation is mostly made for several hours or for the whole day.

At this moment, there are multiple old-fashioned providers of car sharing in the

Netherlands, like Greenwheels, ConnectCar and StudentCar.

II. One-Way

The only ‘One-Way’ car sharing company in the Netherlands is Car2Go. Their workspace is only the city center of Amsterdam. Their way of car sharing is very short term: you can reserve a car 30 minutes prior to departure at most. You pay per

minute (no monthly fee) and you can pick up the car and leave the car at every parking spot inside the service area. This way of renting is especially suitable for small point-to-point rides in the city. Car2Go uses full electric Smart Fortwo cars in

Amsterdam.

Private car sharing

I. Peer-to-Peer car sharing

With ‘Peer-to-Peer’ car sharing, people rent a car from an individual (peer) instead of a company. However, most times a company acts as a mediator between two individuals. For example, Snappcar, MyWheels and WeGo are companies that offer these services. Snappcar is the market leader. Most services work with a surcharge principle. Peer-to-Peer car sharing is nationwide.

II. General Partnership

A group of people or families decides to share a car together. To deal with legal issues, they create a general partnership. The car is property of the partnership. Most important reasons to choose this option are: cheap, simple, no frills and being environmentally conscious (‘being green’).

It’s clear that the phenomenon of “the sharing economy” found its way to the car business. How did car sharing develop over the past years? What will consumers do?

Could car sharing be a success in the countryside of the Netherlands? Which car- sharing model has the best chance on success for the future? And can car sharing ease the car related problems in the Randstad region?

II. Literature Review

In this section, an overview will be given about the transport market for consumers.

The goal of this part is to analyze the transportation market, and give an overview of how this market is structured right now.

The following topics will be addressed in this section:

1. What kind of transportation options do consumers have in the Randstad

region?

2. How big is the market share of those transportation options in the Randstad

region?

3. Which clusters can we distinguish among customers?

4. Which transportation options are used by which cluster?

5. What motives for car use and car possession can be found in the literature?

6. What future trends about transportation can be seen?

I. Facts about transportation in the Randstad Region

Transportation options in the Randstad region

For every trip, people have a choice between different modes of transport, each with it’s own specific characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. In a single trip, multiple modes can be combined. In general, the car is the most popular mode of transport. Speed, comfort, convenience and freedom are the most used arguments

(Anable, 2005, Hagman, 2003).

The most important options for transportation in the Randstad region are: train, metro, tram, bus, bicycle/e-bike/scooter and personal car. Because metro, tram and bus are quite similar, those are combined under “regional public transport”.

The bicycle/e-bike/scooter is not suitable for inter city trips, but is very popular inside cities, as an alternative for regional public transport and car.

Transportation options’ market share

An average person in the Randstad region makes 2.64 movements a day and travels

29.93 km a day. The distribution among all the transportation options in the Randstad region are shown in table 1.

Table 1: Distribution transport options (source: CBS Statline)

Movements pp/pd Distance pp/pd Time pp/pd Transportation option Number km minutes Total transportation 2,64 29,93 65,09 Car (driver) 0,94 15,99 23,25 Car (passenger) 0,26 5,27 7,31 Train 0,08 3,02 6,1 Bus/tram/metro 0,1 1,09 4,07 Scooter 0,04 0,24 0,65 Bicycle 0,73 2,7 13,47 By foot 0,46 0,81 8,84 Other 0,04 0,81 1,4

The absolute numbers of table 1 are better comparable in relative numbers (see table

2).

Table 2: Distribution transport options (relative) (source: CBS Statline)

Movements pp/pd Distance pp/pd Time pp/pd Transportation option Number km minutes Total transportation 100% 100% 100% Car (driver) 36% 53% 36% Car (passenger) 10% 18% 11% Train 3% 10% 9% Bus/tram/metro 4% 4% 6% Scooter 2% 1% 1% Bicycle 28% 9% 21% By foot 17% 3% 14% Other 2% 3% 2%

Looking at distance pp/pd, it’s clear that the car is transport option number one, with

53% for drivers and 18% for passengers. In number of movements, the bicycle is popular, but in distance the bicycle is only 9%. This is easy to explain, because people travel way slower on a bicycle than with a car.

II. Clusters in the transportation market

Mentality Model by Motivaction

To identify the clusters in the transportation market, the Mentality-model will be used. This model is invented by Motivaction and gives an overview of the different types of people living in modern society. The Mentality model distinguishes groups of people based on underlying values and motivations (Motivaction, 2014). Every group has it’s own norms and values, which translate into behavior and therefore mobility habits. The travel profile of the groups have been researched by Motivaction on behalf of The Council for Transport (Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat) in their publication: “Wie ik ben en waar ik ga” (Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2010).

In the Mentality model, eight different groups are distinguished. Behind every group,

there estimated representation in the Randstad region is shown:

• New conservatives (4%)

• Cosmopolitans (18%)

• Traditional bourgeois (9%)

• Modern bourgeois (9%)

• Convenience oriented (9%)

• Social climbers (34%)

• Post-materialists (4%)

• Postmodern hedonists (13%)

These groups differ on two axes: values (traditional, modern, postmodern) and status

(low, middle, high). 19

The differences between Mentality in the Netherlands and Mentality in the Randstad Region are shown in figure 5.

Figure 5: The Mentality Model; Netherlands versus Randstad (Motivaction, 2014)

Social climbers

This group is a generally young, very ambitious group. They aim for a luxurious lifestyle and attach high value to their material achievements. They are technology- minded and find it important to take the lead. Their education level is varied and their income is average, except a large group top incomes. This group will grow most for the upcoming years in the Randstad region.

Mobility is their main goal in life. They like to travel quickly and efficiently, and are not bound to city limits. The Social Climber is young and urban-oriented and therefore often makes use of tram, bus and / or subway. They don’t often own a car.

However, the car is often seen as more than just a transportation option. Therefore, the car is a status symbol.

Cosmopolitans

Cosmopolitans are critical citizens of the world who integrate post-modern values such as growth and experience with modern values such as success, materialism and enjoyment. The city offers them art, culture, architecture, gastronomy and a wide social network. Their education is relatively high and their income is (except from the younger cosmopolitans) also higher on average. This group is very interested in traveling, mostly to other big cities in the world.

This group often works and lives in the same city. Their transportation option of choice is the bicycle. Besides the bicycle, they often travel by public transport.

Postmodern hedonists

Postmodern hedonists are pioneers of the experience culture, in which experimentation and breaking with moral and social conventions has become a goal in and of itself. They are the ones that choose the new “place to be” and when the crowd discovers these places, they already left. They mostly live in big cities and are often single. Their education level is high, and incomes are wide spread.

Postmodern hedonists are flexible and carefree. They travel a lot, often without a plan. They don’t own a car, because it’s too much trouble and public transport is fine in the big cities. This group is a real traveler: they enjoy it.

Convenience oriented

The Convenience Oriented are impulsive and passive consumers whose first priority is to live a carefree, pleasant and comfortable life. This group often chooses to move to the more quite city suburban areas. Their education level is lower on average and their income is below average.

This group chooses the easiest way. They often travel by scooter and when they have a car available, they will probably use it, even for the small trips. The Convenience

Oriented are locally oriented, and move mostly locally. They don’t often leave their town, and are therefore not frequent participants of the traffic in the Randstad region.

Traditional Bourgeois

The Traditional Bourgeois is moralistic, dutiful and status quo oriented middle class who hold onto traditions and material possessions. Their age is often higher than 45. 22

They are average educated and their income is around average. This group is not very often resident in the big cities.

This group has a small range and travel mostly in their direct environment. The car is

their transportation option of choice, but it is seen as a functional means of transport.

Modern bourgeois

The Modern Bourgeois is a status-conscious middle class looking for a balance

between tradition and modern values such as consumption and enjoyment. This group

is very broad; equally men and women, age, income and education are widely spread.

This group is often married and has children. They mostly live outside the city.

For the Modern Bourgeois, the car is an important status symbol. They choose the

easy option and use the car a lot. This group travels mostly with the whole family.

Post-Materialists

The Post-Materialists are socially critical idealists who are interested in personal

growth, and make a statement against social injustice and defend the environment.

This group includes more women than men. The average age is high (between 45 and

60) and the level of education is above average. They live in small or middle-sized cities.

Post-Materialists are critical, also to themselves. Their choices are responsible and so is their mobility. They won’t use the car, unless it’s really necessary. They favor the train or the bicycle because of the environment. The bicycle is also a popular leisure. 23

New Conservatives

The New Conservatives are the liberal-conservative social top layer of society that embraces technological development and resists social and cultural innovation. This group includes more men than women. Their education level is above average and their income is mostly high. The average age is higher than in the other groups. The

New Conservatives live often in the Randstad region, but outside the big cities.

This group is individualistic and likes to be in control. They often travel alone. The

New Conservatives often own a car and it’s their favorite transportation option. They use it both private and work-related. Their choice of mobility is based on a pragmatic consideration. They choose the fastest way and try to avoid problems. Public transport is not very popular among this group.

Motives for car use and possession

Steg (2005) sees three types of car use motives: instrumental, symbolic and affective.

The car is much more than a means of transport. Car use is not only popular because of its instrumental functions. Besides, other motives seem to play an important role, such as feelings of sensation, power, superiority and arousal. People speak about their cars in affective ways and car advertisements are sometimes more about symbolic functions than instrumental functions. In many car advertisements, appeals are made to people’s sensitivities to control, power, social status and self-esteem. For many people, the car seems to be a status symbol, people can express themselves by means of their car, driving is adventurous, thrilling and pleasurable. This implies that the

utility of car travel is not only dependent on its instrumental value, but also on

symbolic and affective factors (Steg, 2005).

Gardner (2007) conducted a qualitative research among 19 private car commuters,

living in a small English city and found five core motives for car use: journey time

concerns and journey-based affect; minimizing effort; personal space concerns;

minimizing monetary costs; and a desire for control (Gardner, 2007).

Ellaway et. al. found that both men and women get psychological benefits from car use, however, they both get different benefits. Protection is particularly important for women, and prestige more so for men. The study suggests that people with car access may experience more protection, autonomy, prestige, self-esteem and mastery than do users of public transport (Ellaway, Macintyre, Hiscock, Kearns, 2003).

Cars are more likely to be possessed by people who indicate that car driving contributes to the quality of their life. Some people buy and drive cars because they like to and not only because they have a practical need to do so (Sandqvist and

Kriström, 2001).

This means that not matter how favorable the alternatives for the car are, it remains popular, because car use and possession is more than a means of transport. There are affective and symbolic motives in play.

III. Future Trends

The Council for Transport and Water (Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat) explains a number of future trends in transport behavior in their publication: “Wie ik ben en waar ik ga” (Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2010). The following trends are expected for 2040:

1. The car will not lose as a status symbol

2. In 2040, more people will use a car and also in private context, car use will

grow

3. The bicycle will be less popular

4. Motives for traveling will change; less cultural visits, more going out

5. People will try to travel more efficiently (time) instead of travelling for fun

6. Travelling together will be less popular

7. Convenience will be more important

III. Method

The research question in this paper is:

“How did car sharing develop over the past years and which car-sharing model has the best chances of success in the coming years?”

Given that car sharing is a fairly new phenomenon, it has not been studied in-depth.

The nature of the research question, the very little control on behavioral events and the focus on a contemporary phenomenon make, according to Yin (2009), a case study the best research method.

The case in this research is car sharing in the Netherlands, with special attention to the

Randstad region. This is an explorative single case-based study. This case will be studied on a retrospective basis and on a snapshot basis. This means that this research will focus on car sharing in the past, but also on the status of car sharing as it is at this moment. This double basis was chosen because it gives the best overview, needed for this research.

I. Data collection

To answer the research question and meet the objectives of this research, it’s important to focus on gaining the perspectives of the most important stakeholders in the car sharing business. This will be done in two different ways. The first one is a documentary analysis. Reports of different organizations, research articles and 27

newspaper articles will be used to lay a theoretical ground. This is important for the

external validity of this research. The documentary analysis will mostly be used for

the descriptive part of this research.

The second way is qualitative data, which will be gathered through interviews.

In-depth interviews will be held with the key persons and stakeholders in this market.

The interviews will be mostly used for the explorative part of this research.

The interviewed stakeholders are:

- Municipality of Amsterdam, DIVV (Infrastructure and Traffic).

o Key topic: This division is responsible for the parking policy of Amsterdam. What is their vision on car sharing and what is the effect

of legislation?

o Contact: Iris Kerremans (Trainee DIVV Amsterdam) - Q-Park Nederland: Biggest owner of parking garages in the Netherlands.

o Key topic: If car sharing is winning ground on private car possession, what does this mean for parking garages?

o Contact: Sacha Oerlemans (Corporate Director Marketing at Q-park NL).

- Snappcar:

o Key topic: Snappcar is market leader in peer-to-peer car sharing. Do they think their model of car sharing has more future than commercial

car sharing?

o Contact: Hendrik-Jan Glerum (Business at Snappcar)

- MyWheels: 28

o Key topic: MyWheels is a car sharing provider for ‘Classic’ and ‘Peer- to-Peer’ car sharing

o Contact: Henry Mentink (founder) - Vereniging Gedeeld Autogebruik (foundation for shared car use)

o Key topic: This foundation organized insurances and parking spots for general partnerships.

o Contact: Henry Mentink (founder) - Private car sharers:

o Key topics: They joined a ‘General Partnership’ for over ten years. What are their experiences?

o Contacts: Jan Voskamp and Carole Sombroek

The companies and stakeholders were contacted by email. Some key persons forwarded the email to a co-worker or subordinate, but in all cases the interview was very valuable. Some companies didn’t want an interview, but for those companies a backup company or contact was used.

Interview technic

The in-depth interviews with the key persons mentioned above, will be semi- structured. Because this research is trying to be descriptive and explorative, and because most key persons are experts in their area, a semi-structured interview allows them to talk about topics they find important. On the other side, it helps to give the interview a certain order and it assures that all topics will be covered. The topics mentioned below will function as an interview guide, but the interviewer has the

freedom to pick up on things said by interviewees (Bryman, 2008). The questions used during the interviews can be found in the appendix.

II. Data analysis

All interviews were recorded (with permission) and transcribed. The transcription was analyzed with NVivo. In every interview the same topics were covered (more or less) and these parts were coded in NVivo.

The document analysis was also done with NVivo. There are a lot of reports written about car sharing by for example DIVV, Bovag, KPVV and ‘Ministerie van

Infrastructuur’. All these reports were coded.

A combination of an inductive and a deductive approach was used, but more towards inductive. The codes were based on the questions, based on the ‘Tip’ by Yin (2009).

For example: ‘solution’ or ‘problem’. The codes for a problem were divided in more codes, like ‘congestion’ or ‘air pollution’.

The analysis is most similar to what Yin (2009) describes as ‘Time-Series Analysis’.

The results were ordered chronologically. This made clear that car sharing is divided in two big ‘momenta’, which gave a very important structure for this paper. This is most similar to ‘Chronologies’ (Yin, 2009), because it helps to see the relationships between events.

IV. Results

The results of the interviews and documentary analysis will be structured chronologically. First, the period before 1993 will be described. In this period, the first car-sharing initiatives were founded. After that, the period between 1993 and

1996 will be explained. This period can be seen as ‘the first momentum’. The following period, 1996 – 2003, is known as the period in which car sharing should have grown to a more mature state. Why this did not happen will be explained. The period 2003 – 2010 is a period of very low interest in car sharing and can be seen as an interval between two momenta of car sharing. The last period, 2010 – present, shows a new momentum for car sharing. In this section, the new initiatives will be explained, and the differences between the two momenta of car sharing will be highlighted.

I. The Beginning (international)

One of the first countries that started with car sharing was Switzerland. Already in

1948 the first foundation for car sharing was found (Deelauto – stand van zaken,

1996). In 1993, Switzerland was the absolute forerunner in the car sharing business among all European countries. The biggest car sharing foundation was the ‘Auto

Teilet Genossenschaft’ (ATG), which was founded in 1987 in Stans. The ATG had

1000 members with 80 cars.

The most important reason for members of the ATG to start with car sharing was to reduce environmental impact of car use. Therefore, the average member was highly educated and environmentally conscious.

The ATG was based on small, private initiatives, which were called a ‘Filial’. ATG buys the car, organizes the system and takes care of maintenance of the car, as long as every Filial has at least ten members. Income and expenses are both for ATG.

ATG discourages long distance traveling by car, by counting a high variable price.

Therefore, traveling between 15 and 100 km per trip is most attractive in this system.

Above 10.000 km a year, ATG car sharing is no longer profitable, due to the variable costs. ATG merged with ShareCom in 1997 and has 112.000 customers in 2014.

II. Before 1993

Witkar

In 1970, the first initiative related to car sharing started. It was called the ‘Witkar’ and

it was based on an already existing idea in Amsterdam: “Het Witte Fietsenplan”. This

idea described how the municipality would provide bicycles in the city center of

Amsterdam, which were available for everyone at no charge. You could take a bicycle

whenever you want, and leave it at your destination. Another person could take the

same bicycle to his destination. The municipality owns and repairs the bicycles.

However, due to the chance of theft, this idea never caught on.

The inventor of ‘Het Witte Fietsenplan’, Luud Schimmelpenninck, an Amsterdam

city councilor, came up with a new version: ‘Witkar’ (literally: white car). The essence of the Witkar idea is the same, however, it uses cars instead of bicycles.

Witkar started on 21 March 1974.

The Witkar (or: Elektriese Munt-Oto) was a three wheeled, electric vehicle. Its range was limited to 15 km. To use a Witkar, you needed to join an association. The variable costs were one guilder per five km. The most important disadvantage of the system was that every trip needed to start and end at a Witkar station. Witkar started with five stations and 25 vehicles. For total coverage of Amsterdam City Center, 25 stations and 125 vehicles were needed. The ultimate target was 150 stations and 1000 vehicles. Due to administrative difficulties and a lack of support from the City

Council, Witkar was discontinued on 27 October 1986.

Since 2007, Schimmelpenninck tries to relaunch his idea for Witkar. According to

Schimmelpenninck, the idea of the free bicycle and car are even more relevant in today’s society:

“Believe me, five years from now, every European country is working on clean urban transport. The white bicycle (‘Het witte fietsenplan) has entered Paris, Berlin, Lyon,

Vienna and many more. I predict that a modern version of Witkar will conquer

Amsterdam and Utrecht. The government wants cleaner air. Nothing is more ideal than transferring drivers to electric Witkars on parking spots outside the city. This plan is in its infancy, but I believe in it” (Trouw, 14/11/2007).

A feasibility study in 1992 found that 71% of the potential car sharers (people with a car and low work-related mileage) thought about car sharing as an interesting option.

40% had the intention to use car sharing (Deelauto – stand van zaken, 1996). This caused a momentum in the car sharing business in the Netherlands.

III. ‘The First Momentum’ (1993 – 1996)

According to Henry Mentink, founder of the foundation for shared car use (Stichting

Gedeeld Autogebruik), real car sharing started around 1993. The Dutch government

knew that 50.000 people in the Netherlands were sharing their car in a private context.

In a private context means that families were sharing a car without any intervention of

a third party. This usually were initiatives in the neighborhood, based on trust and

responsibility. Most members of such an initiative were collected in a ‘maatschap’ (a

legal form of a business entity which is most related to the general partnership). The

partnership administered one or more cars and is responsible for settling all costs among the members. All rules are defined in an agreement, which is signed by all members.

A general partnership car was used mostly twice or three times a week. Most drives were private related, like: shopping, visiting family and day trips. Most members of a partnership were family or neighbors (Deelauto – stand van zaken, 1996).

The General Partnership

Jan Voskamp was member of two car sharing partnerships for over twelve years. A

colleague initiated his first partnership ‘Automaten’. The goal of Automaten was to

share a car with colleagues from ‘Werkgroep 2000’. Voskamp lived in Amsterdam at

the time, but worked in Amersfoort. The most important reason to start sharing a car

was that it wasn’t financially attractive to own a car. Voskamp didn’t need the car for

work or on a daily basis, but sometimes he needed it to visit family or to transfer

heavy objects. His colleagues lived in Amersfoort, so most of the time the shared car

was parked in Amersfoort. Therefore, Voskamp needed to book the car in advance

and was not able to take the car on short notice. However, since all partners worked together, it was not hard to coordinate the usage of the car.

After one year, Voskamp left ‘Automaten’ and founded a new partnership with his neighbors. With two other families, Voskamp founded ‘Automaten 2’. This partnership has existed for ten years. The most important reason to share a car was the same as for ‘Automaten’: being able to use a car for special circumstances, like family visiting.

According to Carole Sombroek (Voskamp’s partner and member of ‘Automaten 2’, there were a few factors very important for the success of the partnership:

1. Nobody needed a car for commuting-related travel, because everybody lived

in the same city as where they worked.

2. Four out of six members of the partnership were given a free subscription on

public transport. That caused even more consideration, because traveling by

train was for free and traveling by car was not.

3. The car was parked in the street, because every member lived in the

neighborhood. This means you were able to see from your kitchen window if

the car was available. With the first partnership this was not possible.

4. The administrative system was very plain and simple. In the glove

compartment, you could find an agenda and a notebook. The agenda was the

reservation system, and the notebook was the travel registration. You wrote

down the mileage at the start and at the end, and after each month the costs

could be calculated.

5. For the holiday season, the members made a very strict and clear agreement:

Every year, two families could use the car for the holiday, for a maximum of 36

three weeks. The other family could rent a car or travel by plane. But those

costs wouldn’t be settled among the other members, because it was a rotating

system. This meant that every family could use the car in the holiday season in

two out of three years.

This set of rules made car sharing for Voskamp and Sombroek a success. Especially having the car in the neighborhood was an important factor:

“Some colleagues of my nowadays use Greenwheels. They always need to pick up the car somewhere before they are able to use it. And I don’t like that I need to take the bicycle, carrying a five- and a four year old, to a car before I can use it. I think

Greenwheels is more some kind of renting service, while we really shared possession of the car. It really felt like our common property” (Carole Sombroek).

Greenwheels

The Ministry of Traffic, Bovag and ANWB tried to unite themselves to make car sharing more professional, but this failed. Henry Mentink was, just as the Voskamp family, sharing a car with relatives. He founded the foundation for car sharing

(Vereniging Gedeeld Autogebruik). The goal of this foundation was to unite car sharers and represent their interests. Greenwheels, a Dutch car sharing initiative, started the same year. Their growth rate was 30% to 40% every year. According to

Mentink, Greenwheels offers around 2500 cars, for 38.000 members. They try to offer one car per fifteen members.

In 1996, there were sixteen different concepts in 250 municipalities, with more than

50.000 members (Deelauto – stand van zaken, 1996). 37

Comparison between concepts

Between these different concepts, a lot of relevant factors differ from each other. All

concepts, including the partnerships, will be clustered in different groups, to point out

the mutual differences. To structure the comparison, the 4 P’s of the marketing mix

will be used, which are product, price, place and promotion.

General Partnership (Maatschap)

Product

Every partner deposits goods or money in the partnership. All partners sign a

‘partnership contract’, which contains the rules. This contract describes the cost

structure, allocation of costs and all other aspects of car sharing.

Price

The partnership decides it own cost structure. For example: The partnership mentioned above (‘Automaten’) used the following cost structure:

• € 0,35 per kilometer (including all costs, like oil and gas)

• For long drives: after 500 km, car use is free, except costs like oil and gas.

The second rule made it fairly cheap to use the car for vacation trips. Because the

right to use the car for vacation trips was equal divided, this had no effect on cost

distribution.

When a new car was bought, all members paid an equal share.

When a partner wished to leave the partnership, the remaining partners would buy him out.

Place

Most partnerships are car-sharing initiatives on a very small scale. Most cars in a partnership are shared with people in the neighborhood, because this offers the most ideal situation. The car is parked in front of the houses, which is close by for every partner.

Jan Voskamp shared his first car with colleagues from work, who lived in another city. His second car was shared with families in his neighborhood. His wife, Carole

Sombroek, thinks that is the most important reason for success.

Promotion

The general partnership is not meant as a commercial business, and is therefore often not promoted like other initiatives like Greenwheels. There could be some kind of recruitment in the neighborhood to gather enough members, but this just slightly related to promotion.

Membership car sharing (Greenwheels)

Product

Membership car sharing concepts offer you a subscription. You can use all cars that the company manages. The market leader in the car sharing business, Greenwheels, uses this concept. They offer mainly Peugeot 107, but since Pon (partially) acquired

Greenwheels, it is expected that Greenwheels is going to use cars produced by the

Volkswagen Group.

Greenwheels also offers station wagons (estates) which are bigger (but more expensive), and even minibuses.

Greenwheels held a pilot with electric Peugeot iOn cars. In the Randstad region, they placed 25 electric cars, with charging stations. Mid 2013, the pilot was canceled because the usage-rate was too low. Greenwheels doesn’t have electric cars anymore since September 2013.

Price

You pay a standard fee per month, and a small fee when you actually use the car, per hour or kilometer. Greenwheels offers the following cost structure (most popular subscription):

• 15 euro per month, regardless of use.

• € 3,50 per hour, € 0,14 per km for a standard car

• € 5,20 per hour, € 0,18 per km for an estate or minibus

The cost of fuel (gasoline / diesel) is paid by Greenwheels and afterwards per kilometer charged to the members. In April 2014 the fuel rate for the city car was

€ 0.1025 and € 0.1623 for the estate or minivan per kilometer.

Place

Greenwheels cars are placed all over the Randstad region. According to the

Greenwheels website, they have over 1700 locations with one or more cars. On the map on their website, it is shown that their locations are very city-centered. This 40

causes that provinces like Groningen or Drenthe are very poor covered, but the

Randstad region has good coverage.

Promotion

In 2008, Greenwheels stated it doesn’t advertise, so all promotion is done by viral

marketing (AD, 17-01-2008).

Greenwheels did link itself with the NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen). In 1997,

Greenwheels even marketed itself as a ‘NS-service’.

“That’s a matter of marketing. For a new initiative, it is important that you associate

yourself with an established name”, said Jan Borghuis (Emerce, 27-12-2004).

Nowadays, Greenwheels and the NS are still connected. Customers of the NS can get

a discount on their Greenwheels subscription. This is especially focused on business

users, since the systems of the ‘NS-business card’ and Greenwheels are connected.

Call-a-car membership (‘Auto op Afroep, ANWB’)

Product

Call-a-car initiatives are in most cases initiated by professional renting companies.

Call-a-car is closely related to normal renting, but the cost structure is different. The name seems to imply that the car is brought to you, but that is often not the case. The car has to be collected and returned at the renting company. Most providers of call-a- car concepts made deals with rental companies. The ANWB started ‘Auto op Afroep’ with PrevaRent as partner in 1994 and expected more than 100.000 clients. However, in 1997 ANWB reported that the actual usage of ‘Auto op Afroep’ was just a few 41

thousand members. This forced ANWB to change the concept and collaborate with a new partner, Budget Rent a Car.

Price

The idea of this kind of contracts is that people need a rental car quite often, but not very often; so owning a car is not financially attractive. The price consists of two elements: a monthly fee, and a variable component per kilometer or per day/hour.

The price of the subscription depends on the number of days, kilometers and car type a user wants. The prices do not include gas.

Place

These initiatives are most often locally oriented. A user has a contract with a local car rental company, and the subscriptions are not exchangeable (location bound). The user needs to pick up the car and return the car at the rental company.

The ANWB ‘Auto op Afroep’ was a nation wide initiative. The ANWB collaborated with car dealers and, in a later stage, with rental companies (Budget Rent a Car).

However, even with ‘Auto op Afroep’ users need to return the car to the same place as where they collected the car.

Promotion 42

Since these initiatives are commercial, the companies are actively recruiting

members. The car-a-call initiatives are often locally, so advertising takes place on a

local scale.

Since the ANWB ‘Auto op Afroep’ is nation wide, the ANWB used advertising on a

broader scale. They used their own magazine, which was distributed among all

members, newspapers and radio or television commercials.

Coupons

Product

Coupon car sharing is mostly offered by national rental companies. Customers buy a

set of coupons in advance and with a coupon, a customer gets discount on the car rental. Rental companies offer this to make customers loyal. Some examples of companies that offer coupon car sharing are: Hertz (H2O), Budget (Snel Weg Plan) and Avis (Avis Club).

Price

Coupon car sharing is related to the call-a-car concepts. The biggest difference between both concepts is that coupon concepts don’t charge monthly fees. Instead, you buy your discount beforehand by buying vouchers. The more vouchers a customer buys, the more discount he gets.

Place

Couponing is a national system, because it is in most cases offered by the big,

national rental companies. However, a customer needs to return the car at the pickup

location, so this makes couponing a ‘non-distributable system’. Most rental companies are located in big cities.

Promotion

Since couponing is offered by big companies, promotion and acquisition of customers

is often national. Most important advertising media are national newspapers and

targeted magazines, like car magazines.

Update

Since 1996, the world has changed a lot. New technologies offered lots of new

possibilities. Also, not all concepts were successful. Some concepts, Greenwheels for

example, gained momentum and managed to grow year after year for 30% - 40% a year, according to Henry Mentink. Others, like Hertz’ H2O were not a success and are discontinued. Also, ANWB’s Auto op Afroep wasn’t a big success, and Budget took over –and changed– the concept in a classic renting concept.

IV. Between 1996 and 2003

Evaluation

After the first momentum, car sharing had a stable, moderate growth in the following years. The media focused less on the developments in the car sharing business and companies like Greenwheels and Wheels4All (MyWheels) had a stable business with growth rates about 30%-40%.

In 1996, the government formulated a goal for 2010:

“To halve the current growth of car ownership, The Netherlands should have two million car sharers in 2010. This is expected to lead to a saving of 1.4 million cars compared to a growth trend. This lower growth in car ownership could reduce de growth of the number of travelled kilometers by car with approximately 4 billion kilometers.”

This goal was formulated on basis of a feasibility study by AGV (‘Adviesgroep

Verkeer en Vervoer) in 1994 about the introduction of Call-a-Car concepts in the

Netherlands.

In 2010, The Netherlands had 1919 shared cars. Hendrik-Jan Glerum (Snappcar) said that every shared car has between 8 and 13 users. This means that in the Netherlands, the total number of car sharers is between 15.352 and 24.947. This means that the growth of car sharers is far behind the goal formulated by the Dutch government. Car sharing turned out to be more like a hobby for a very small part of the population, instead of a worthy substitution for car ownership.

Worldwide: The Transportation Sustainability Research Center of the University of

California Berkeley found that as of October 2012, car sharing was operating in 27

countries and five continents, accounting for an estimated 1,788,000 members sharing

approximately 43,550 vehicles. This means that the number of car sharers the

government had in mind for 2010, wasn’t even reached worldwide in 2012. This

brings up an important question: How is it possible that the Dutch government

overestimated car sharing with such an enormous difference?

To answer that question, a report written by Ligtermoet+Louwerse bv for the

‘Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer’ is helpful. This report assesses ten years of

stimulation policies in the Netherlands. According to Ligtermoet (2003), there are

three important aspects that influenced the goal set by the government in 1996 for

2010:

Responses about future behavior were interpreted as truthful.

The feasibility study conducted by AGV was based on a questionnaire. In this questionnaire one of the most important themes was “selling the private owned car”.

According to Ligtermoet (2003), this kind of questions is comparable to ‘will you quit smoking next year?’; a kind of question in which a big correction for political correctness is needed.

Conclusions of the AGV study were torn out of context, even in the paper itself.

The first statement in the AGV paper was: “16% of the car-driven kilometers could be made by Call-a-car”. In the conclusion AGV stated: “Call-a-car will reduce the car- 46

driven kilometers with a net effect of 3,5 to 4 billion kilometers per year”. According to Ligtermoet (2003) this conclusion is a forecast with no link to the results.

The AGV study found that respondents had certain demands that were most of the time not met by the providers of car sharing. Therefore, the results of the AVG study were not representative for the Dutch situation.

It is clear that the prospect of the Dutch government was based on very doubtful statements. Knowing that, it is no surprise the goals were never reached. In the

Ligtermoet (2003) report, it is more than clear that the goal for 2010 will never be reached. This is why the Dutch government stopped their incentive policies after ten years of stimulation.

Car sharing is in 2003 not the substitute for car possession with national coverage and relevance as the government expected. Car sharing only exists in the older parts of the biggest cities, and about 50% of that is in Amsterdam. These districts are characterized by scarcity of parking lots, and car possession is no requirement to be socially active. Car sharing is mostly used in these districts for private drives in the weekend, because commute traveling is done by pubic transport (Ligtermoet, 2003).

According to Ligtermoet (2003), three reasons justify the decision of the Dutch government to stop the incentive policy on car sharing:

1. There is not even one municipality in the Netherlands where car sharing has

noticeable effects on traffic.

2. The market itself can regulate car sharing. The government has proven to be

unable to stimulate demand.

3. The social value of car sharing is too location specific to be stimulated by the

national government.

V. The Interval Period (2003 – 2010)

Without the help of the government, car sharing lost its momentum. In the background, companies like Greenwheels grew in their normal pace (30% a year), but car sharing was more seen as a hobby than as a replacement or substitute for private car possession. The policy of local governments and the national government was more focused to electric driving, carpooling and bio fuel. The lack of stimulation policies and the low relevance for consumers reduced the pace of growth. Between

2003 and 2010, the number of shared cars grew slowly. This is shown in a study by

KPVV in 2013. The number of shared cars in the Netherlands is shown in figure 6, figure 7 and figure 8.

However, in this time period, the society changed because of new trends and innovations. This shaped the market in a more favorable way for car sharing. The most important trends and innovations in the Netherlands are:

- The ‘sharing economy’ gained ground

- Internet became available for everybody and everywhere

- An economical recession kicked in

- In high density regions, parking lots became even more scarce

- ‘Generation Y’ (1981-2001) values private car possession a lot less then other

generations

Figure 6: Number of shared cars per municipality in 2002 (KPVV, 2013) Figure 7: Number of shared cars per municipality in 2006 (KPVV, 2013) Figure 8: Number of shared cars per municipality in 2010 (KPVV, 2013)

Trends

The sharing economy

The ‘sharing economy’, ‘collaborative consumption’ or ‘peer-to-peer economy’ are all names for a phenomenon that follows the principle of ‘using’ instead of ‘owning’.

The trend of the last few years is to apply this principle on all kind of consumption.

Companies try to exploit this principle by creating an environment in which goods and products can be shared.

The most successful companies in this area are:

- Spotify: listening to music without buying it. Paying by subscription (fixed

fee) or by listening to commercials

- AirBnB: giving people the opportunity to rent a spare room in their house to

tourists. AirBnB earns 5 euro per reservation.

- Netflix: Same as Spotify, but for movies and series. Only by subscription

(fixed fee).

The European Economic and Social Committee, an advisory board of the European

Union, is thinking about legislation for the sharing economy. They want to monitor all sharing economy related activity and determine possible boundaries. EESC-member

Bernardo Hernández Bataller stated in an interview that the sharing economy has the following benefits (Kluwer.be):

- Less use of resources

- Lower Co2 emission

- More demand for durable products

- More social interaction 51

- People with low incomes have access to high-quality products

Availability of Internet

The first public provider of Internet in the Netherlands was XS4All. It was founded on May 1, 1993. After XS4All, many providers followed. The number of Internet connections in the Netherlands grew fast.

In the Netherlands the penetration of Internet connections is one of the highest in the world. According to CBS, The Netherlands the percentage of households with an

Internet connection is 97% (CBS Statline, 2014).

The rise of smartphones and mobile Internet provides a tremendous opportunity for businesses. A worldwide Google research (‘Our Mobile Planet’) showed how important mobile Internet is in The Netherlands:

“Smartphones have become an indispensable part of our daily lives. Smartphone penetration has risen to 52% of the population and these smartphone owners are becoming increasingly reliant on their devices. 73% access the Internet every day on their smartphone and most never leave home without it.

Implication: Businesses that make mobile a central part of their strategy will benefit from the opportunity to engage the new constantly connected consumer.”

(Google: Our Mobile Planet: Netherlands, 2013)

As Google says, embedding mobile in your business strategy gives you a huge opportunity to reach consumers almost 24/7.

Economical recession

Since 2008 The Netherlands are suffering by an economical recession, which was

known as ‘Kredietcrisis’ (Financial Crisis). The government acknowledged this situation in September 2008 by adapting their policy for 2009 to cope with the coming economical recession.

The Financial Crisis was followed by a new crisis, which was called the “Eurocrisis”.

This crisis (which also caused a recession) started in the third quarter of 2011 and was based on the high debts of some countries in the European Union.

In May 2014, the Dutch minister of Finance, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, stated that the recession was over, because the last two quarters showed a positive economical growth. However, the Centre for Economic Policy Research (the CEPR), didn’t agree.

“The CEPR Business Cycle Dating Committee has concluded the euro area might be mired in a recession pause. Several quarters of positive but extremely weak economic developments since early 2013 do not constitute sufficient evidence that the euro area recession that started after 2011Q3 is over.” (CEPR, June 2014).

The lack of economic growth caused a drop in spending. According to Nibud, 70% of the Dutch households were economizing in April 2013. 19% said they were economizing on their car. 9% even sold their car (Nibud, April 2013).

If a company could offer a decrease in the costs of car use, this could probably

produce a huge business opportunity.

Scarcity of parking lots

Parking lots are scarce in cities like Amsterdam and Utrecht, but are widely available in, for example, Rotterdam. The layout of the city is very important.

In Rotterdam, only three neighborhoods have a waiting list. The bombing of

Rotterdam in the Second World War, made a completely new design of the city center possible. At that time, it was already clear that car possession would grow. Therefore, during the build up, Rotterdam anticipated on car possession and car use in their design and the city has almost no problems with car traffic.

On the other hand, Amsterdam was build long before the car made his entry. In the city center, streets are too small for two cars to pass and parking lots are very scarce.

The outskirts of Amsterdam, like Nieuw-West, are more build like Rotterdam and do not have a parking problem. The more centered neighborhoods like Jordaan and

Grachtengordel have waiting lists for parking spaces varying from two years till five years (Cition BV, 2014).

Amsterdam tries to shorten the waiting lists by introducing other alternatives. For example: ‘Ringparkeren’, which entitles parking the car in a Park & Ride at the city borders for free with free public transport to your home.

The new city council intends to double the fee of a parking permit

(Hervormingsagenda 2014-2018, Amsterdam, 2014). This could probably have a dampening effect on the waiting lists.

Millenials

With the term ‘Millenials’ the generation is meant that has been born between 1980

and 1995 (PwC, 2013). Another popular name for this generation is ‘Generation Y’.

Price Waterhouse Coopers noticed that a new generation of starters in their company

valued the importance of certain aspects completely different. A significant majority

of them lacked the interest in a traditional career path, which would change the

company’s culture drastically. Therefore PwC undertook one of the largest studies in

its kind to understand the goals and attitudes of this generation.

The study by PwC concluded with some key learnings about Generation Y.

1. Many Millenial employees are unconvinced that excessive work demands are

worth the sacrifices to their personal life

2. Millennial employees want greater flexibility at work

3. A strong cohesive team-oriented culture at work and opportunities for

interesting work are more important for Millenials.

4. Millenial attitudes are not totally universal, but there is a significant

commonality between North Americans and Western Europeans.

5. Millenials place a greater emphasis on being supported and appreciated.

These key learnings are mostly related to a work environment, but they give an

insight in the most important characteristics of this generation. For example: personal

life is more important for Millenials than for other generations and Millenials are

seeking for more flexibility in their life. The search for flexibility is closely linked

with the principle of the ‘Sharing economy’. Rather than buying a car, a movie or a 56

CD, they prefer to pay for use only, because this is way more flexible and the money saved could be spent elsewhere.

Mentality versus Millenials

This grouping of people (by year of birth) is different than the Mentality Model by

Motivaction. The Mentality model neglects year of birth and tries to group people by norms and values. This gives a totally different – and more detailed – overview, and therefore it is not possible to attach the Millenials to one of the groups of the

Mentality Model.

However, most of the stereotype Millenials will probably fall into the ‘Social

Climbers’, ‘Cosmopolitans’ or ‘Postmodern Hedonists’, because of their interests and their age.

Conclusion

The Millenials are now between 34 and 19 years. And their influence is growing every year. Retiring ‘Babyboomers’ (1945 – 1955) are being replaced for Millenials.

The norms and values of society are changing and for companies it is important to acknowledge these trends and to adapt their business to it.

New initiatives

Because of the combination of the societal problems mentioned in the introduction and the trends explained earlier, car sharing became a hot topic again. New initiatives were born and older initiatives were updated to match the new desires of the consumer. Two new initiatives, which both emanate from the mentioned trends, will be explained: Car2Go and Snappcar.

Snappcar

Snappcar was founded in 2011 by Victor van Tol and Pascal Ontijd. Snappcar provides a system that makes it possible for car owners to share their car with consumers.

Product

Snappcar doesn’t offer cars itself, but arranges car sharing among their members.

They take care of the administrative work and assurances. Snappcar initially pays even traffic fines, just to make car sharing as accessible as possible.

Hendrik-Jan Glerum of Snappcar:

“We are trying to make Snappcar as easy as possible, by taking all possible problems that could occur out of the hands of the consumers. For example, traffic penalties, or damages. We will reimburse those costs directly, just to make Snappcar as accessible as possible. Also the assurance is always all-risk at this moment. We don’t want any arguments about who is responsible for what damages whatsoever. Maybe, in a later stage, we can shift responsibility and risk towards consumers who are willing to take it, but for now, we just want it to be as easy as possible”.

Because of their business model, Snappcar offers almost every car. Small city cars,

Mpv’s, cabriolets and even limousines are available for rent. This gives Snappcar a

huge advantage over other car-sharing providers.

Price

The rental period for a car is at least half a day. The owner of the car sets the price for the car, and Snappcar adds 10 euro per day for their services. The stated prices are per day, including Snappcar’s fee. Above that price, Snappcar counts 2,50 euro transaction costs. The car renter pays for gas and in most cases also a price per kilometer.

Since the owner of the car sets the prices, it is hard to see some kind of price lining. A small city car is available from 17,50 euro’s a day (Suzuki Alto, 1998), but a very luxurious car costs 300 euro’s a day (Porsche Panamera or Fisker Karma).

Place

Snappcar is depending on car owners for their distribution of car sharing. With 8706 cars in 887 places, Snappcar operates every region in The Netherlands. Snappcar doesn’t have to be physically present at the renting location, so this gives Snappcar an advantage over other car-sharing providers. Because of the widespread availability of

Internet, Snappcar can be present in the whole country, without leaving their office.

This was not possible during the first momentum of car-sharing, and this gives the new initiatives more chance for success.

Promotion

The most important way for Snappcar to spread their message is through PR. They give a lot of interviews to newspapers and websites. Their story anticipates on the environmentally consciousness that arises in the Netherlands.

Hendrik-Jan Glerum:

“In the beginning it was very hard for us to tell our story. We were standing on a soapbox, but nobody was picking it up. But since a few years, the news articles are transferred from page 24 to the front page. Car sharing and Snappcar are hot topics right now.”

Snappcar doesn’t advertise in newspapers or on TV. They do have a social media campaign, which concentrates on Facebook and Twitter.

Car2Go

Car2Go is a subsidiary by Daimler AG and started in Ulm, Germany in October 2008.

Six years later, Car2Go says it has over 450,000 registered members worldwide.

Car2Go started in Amsterdam with an entirely electric car fleet. This differentiates

Car2Go Amsterdam from other Car2Go cities. Car2Go Amsterdam is still in a pilot

stage.

Product

Car2Go offers small electric vehicles (Smart ForTwo) in Amsterdam. After becoming

a member of Car2Go, customers receive a member card. With that card, members can

open the cars and the fees are automatically collected each month. The most

important differences between Car2Go and other providers are the following:

- Cars can be picked up and dropped everywhere in the service area

- People pay for use only, so there is no monthly fee

- People pay per minute, instead of days or kilometers

- Car2Go cars can be parked anywhere in the service area

- Car2Go cars are completely electrically-driven

These differences make Car2Go a completely different business concept than the

other concepts. While other car-sharing providers are especially suitable for long

drives, Car2Go is meant for short, in-city drives. There is no direct competitor for

Car2Go at this moment.

Price 61

The pricing strategy of Car2Go is to pay for use only. To become a member of

Car2Go, consumers need to pay 19 euro’s. After that, there is no monthly fee. People

only pay per minute.

Pricing Car2Go:

- 0,31 euro per minute

- 14,90 euro per hour

- 69 euro per day

As shown, Car2Go differentiates itself especially on short drives. With competitors, a

5-kilometer drive is not profitable, while with Car2Go the longer drives are not profitable. The price for one day is very high compared to, for example, Snappcar.

This shows the main difference between both concepts.

Place

Car2Go is active all over the world, but in the Netherlands only Amsterdam is part of their business. Because Car2Go is still in the pilot stage (this will be discussed later on), the service area of Car2Go is quite small. Not even the whole of Amsterdam is covered. This has also to do with the scarce availability of charging stations in the outer suburbs of the city.

Service area of Car2Go:

Figure 9: Service area Car2Go Amsterdam (car2go.com)

Promotion

The most important ways for Car2Go to promote car sharing with Car2Go are the promotional days in the city. Car2Go tries to be present at big events in Amsterdam.

At their stand, people can become a member for free. Since there’s no monthly fee or standard costs whatsoever, customers have nothing to lose. This is the reason that

Car2Go has a lot of members in Amsterdam, but not all members are very active in using Car2Go. This will be discussed in the next section. 63

Besides the promotional days, Car2Go is not advertising much. They do have a

Facebook page with a small community. They have around 5.000 likes.

Evaluation of Car2Go in Amsterdam

As mentioned before, Car2Go is still in a pilot stage. This pilot is a collaboration between Car2Go and the city of Amsterdam. It started in November 2011 and will continue until the end of 2015, and probably longer.

The city of Amsterdam has determined that providers of electric shared cars are allowed to operate 350 cars per provider and 750 cars in total. This means that

Car2Go (300 cars) almost reached their limit. Every car that falls into this pilot receives a parking permit for the whole city. This means the cars can be parked anywhere in the city for free. This arrangement in combination with the extra load on electric charging points were the main reasons to cap the pilot at 750 cars.

In November 2013, an evaluation report came out during a national congress about traffic (‘Nationaal Verkeerskunde Congres’). In this evaluation report, the effect of

Car2Go on city traffic was measured and evaluated. Stephan Suiker and Jos van den

Elshout, both working for the municipality of Amsterdam, wrote the report.

Goals

In the report, the city of Amsterdam formulated a number of effects that the pilot with

electric shared cars should have. Those effects are:

- Increase the number of possible ways of transport

- Improve the air quality in Amsterdam

- Improve the visibility of electric car use

Amsterdam tried to increase the number of possible ways of transport. Car2Go has

11.500 members in Amsterdam. A questionnaire among those users (6322

respondents) showed that Car2Go is mostly used as a substitute for public transport.

Figure 10: Choice of transport Car2Go users (Questionaire Car2Go, 2013)

As shown in figure 9, 61,3% uses Car2Go sometimes as a substitution for public

transport (PT). 34.4% says Car2Go is sometimes a substitution for car use (private

car).

Air quality

The effect on air quality in Amsterdam is calculated by determining the saved number

of not-electrically powered kilometers because of Car2Go. The total number of kilometers driven in Amsterdam, by inhabitants of Amsterdam, is 788 million kilometer per year (NVC, 2013). The number of saved kilometers because of Car2Go is 230.000 kilometer. Due to the sensitivity of the information, the writers of the report cannot explain the calculations that were made to conclude this. Car2Go reduced the number of kilometers with approximately 0.03%. Based on these numbers, the city council concluded that the effect of Car2Go on air quality is marginal.

Visibility of electric car use Figure 11: Car2Go (car2go.com) There is no information available on the visibility of Car2Go cars. The appearance of the car is very noticeable since the cars are stickered with Car2Go logos. It is not known if people recognize the cars as being fully electrically.

Besides the effects formulated by the city council of Amsterdam, Car2Go has some negative effects. The following effect are mentioned in the NVC report:

- Clustering of shared cars

- High occupation of charging stations 66

- High parking density

- Illegal parking

- Lower parking revenues

Clustering of shared cars

The definition of ‘clustered cars’ is more than three cars in a 100-meter radius.

Sometimes this is the case, but Car2Go started with the relocation of Car2Go

vehicles. They move approximately 32 cars every day, to keep a wide spread in the

city. Because Car2Go cars can be parked anywhere in the city, clustering is not a big

issue.

High occupation of charging stations

Car2Go cars are fully electric. This naturally results in a high occupation of charging stations. Overall, Car2Go claims around 33% of the available time at a charging station. In the suburbs of Amsterdam (‘Nieuw-West’ and ‘Zuid-Oost’) the occupation by Car2Go is the highest (almost 66%), but in the city center, the occupation rate is much smaller.

Note: the overall occupation of a charging station in the city center is around 50%, so it seems like there is room for Car2Go to grow.

High parking density

Since Car2Go’s have a citywide parking permit, the density of parking was unknown on beforehand. In combination with the clustering of Car2Go’s, it was possible that

Car2Go would cause a very high parking density in certain regions, which would

have caused a parking problem. Since clustering of Car2Go’s is not the case, this

effect is spread among the whole city.

Amsterdam has a parking capacity of 126.500 on-street parking spaces. With 300

Car2Go’s, this means Car2Go takes 0.24% of those spaces. In the city center,

Amsterdam has 15.000 parking spaces. Approximately 90 Car2Go’s are in the city center during the day. This means the percentage of on-street parking spaces used by

Car2Go is 0,6% in that region.

Because the density is spread among the whole city, the effect per region is very little.

1.9% of the users of Car2Go said they sold their first car since their membership of

Car2Go, 2,2% said that they sold their second or third car since their membership. If

Car2Go’s research is representative for all 11.500 users, this could mean that Car2Go

made 322 parking spaces available. The net effect of Car2Go is -22 cars, which

means Car2Go creates more parking spaces than they use.

Car2Go Report:

“4,1% of 11.500 clients * 83,3% living in Amsterdam * 82% where Car2Go was the

leading reason for the decision to sell a car = 322 cars” (NVC, 2013)

Illegal parking

The problem with sharing a car instead of owning it is the low responsibility. The city

council of Amsterdam feared that Car2Go users would park the car not as neatly as

they would park their own car. It turned out this fear was unfounded. Car2Go has no 68

formal metrics about illegal parking, but it stated in interviews that it receives almost no complaints about wrong-parked Car2Go’s. Because of the citywide parking permit, there is always a free spot in the neighborhood. Also, users are clearly informed that possible fines resulting from illegal parking are for their own expense.

These measures ensured that members of Car2Go parked the car on legal spots only, and illegal parking is therefore no problem.

Lower parking revenues

There are three kinds of revenues from parking that are affected by Car2Go:

1. Car2Go members that sold their private car

2. Visitors of Amsterdam that use Car2Go instead of their own car

3. Revenues from Car2Go’s payment for citywide parking permits

The first group includes 322 cars. The average price of a parking permit is 205 euro per year. This means the city of Amsterdam loses 322*205 = 65.600 euro per year, because members of Car2Go sell their private car. Since almost every region in

Amsterdam has a waiting list, this revenue loss can be replaced with new parking permits. This means the net effect of this revenue is zero (NVC, 2013).

The city council of Amsterdam estimates in the NVC report that the total loss of revenue from visitors of the city is 105.000 euro per year. This is calculated by multiplying the number of visitors that uses Car2Go (1851) by the number of visits a year, with respect to their original way of transport.

Car2Go bought 300 citywide parking permits for 675 euro each. The total revenue of this deal is 300 * 675 euro = 202.500 euro per year.

The conclusion the income and expenses is that Car2Go is profitable for the city of

Amsterdam on the aspect of parking permits. This is mostly because the empty parking spaces from members that sold their car can be replaced with new cars. The income from Car2Go’s citywide parking permits neutralizes the loss on former parking incomes from visitors.

Conclusion of the NVC report

On the most important topics, Car2Go seems to have a positive effect. Car2Go is a new way of transport. It seems to be a substitute for public transport, but also for private cars. The effect on air quality is small, but positive. People seem to drive some of their private-car-kilometers with an electrically driven Car2Go now. This reduces air pollution.

The expected negative effects seem to be small. There’s no clustering of Car2Go’s, partially because Car2Go moves them at night. The occupation of charging stations is big, but they are never fully occupied. This means there is always room for other electrical cars. A higher parking density is not the case, since the net effect of Car2Go is -22 cars. There are almost no complains about– or fines for illegal parked cars. And the effect on parking revenues is positive.

VI. ‘The Second Momentum’ (Since 2010)

Car sharing began to grow again since 2010. Figure 11 and 12 present a clear

overview of the large growth that took place between 2010 and 2013. According to

KPVV, peer-to-peer car sharing accounts for most of this growth. KPVV

distinguishes three kinds of car sharing providers:

1. Classic (the Greenwheels-type)

2. Peer-to-peer (the Snappcar-type)

3. One-way (the Car2Go-type)

Figure 12: Types of car sharing providers (KPVV, 2013)

The classic type of car sharing shows a stable growing trend, starting with 1200 cars in 2008 to 2000 cars in 2013.

Car2Go is the only ‘One-way’ type of car sharing provider in the Netherlands. They became active in Amsterdam in 2011 and grew to 300 cars, as is shown in this graph.

The most interesting growth is the ‘Peer-to-Peer-type’. The launch of Snappcar in

2011 kicked of this type of car sharing, and the growth is phenomenal. This growth account almost for all growth represented in figure 12 and 13.

Figure 13 and 14: The number of shared cars, 2010 versus 2013 (KPVV, 2013).

Figure 6: Number of shared cars per region in 2010 (KPVV, 2013) Figure 14: Number of shared cars per region in 2013 (KPVV, 2013)

As shown in figure 12 and 13, the more urbanized regions are growing the most.

Especially in the Randstad region, the four big cities Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The

Hague and Utrecht are orange, which means >100 shared cars.

Also the countryside regions have shared cars. This is probably because of Snappcar, since they are nationwide available.

In March 2013, there were 5275 shared cars in the Netherlands. Compared to 2012, this means a growth rate of 82%. It’s clear that car sharing is growing again. Since

2010 car sharing is in a momentum again, after a long period of relative low interest.

V. Discussion

In this section, the results will be discussed and an answer on the research question will be formulated.

The answer on the research question will be structured around the following sub- questions:

1. What do consumers think?

a. Do consumers want to share?

b. Are the consumer requirements met?

c. For which consumers (geographically) is car sharing an option?

d. Which consumers are generally interested in car sharing?

e. What are the opinions of consumers?

2. Is the ‘Second Momentum’ of car sharing different from the ‘First

Momentum’?

a. In which phase of the product life cycle (Levitt) were both momenta?

b. Is the government more supportive?

c. Is the business more profitable?

3. Is car sharing able to solve the car-related problems in the Randstad region?

a. Excessive use of public space

b. Congestion

c. Traffic Noise

d. Air pollution

e. Safety

4. What do the interviewed key persons think about the future of car sharing?

Do consumers want to share?

In the literature review the future trends for 2040 according to ‘The Council for

Transport’ in their report “Wie ik ben en waar ik ga” (2010) were mentioned. The most important trends for car sharing are: the car will not lose as a status symbol, car use will grow, travelling together will be less popular and convenience will be more important.

This looks like another form of transport sharing ‘Trip sharing’ won’t be popular in the future. But this is different from car sharing, where people rent the car itself, instead of a seat in the car.

Steg (2005) sees that car use fulfills many symbolic and affective functions, like control, power, social status and self-esteem. It has never been researched if car sharing can also fulfill these functions. Since Steg mentioned ‘car use’ instead of ‘car possession’, car sharing seems to have a chance to fulfill these functions.

Gardner (2007), however, found that besides other core motives ‘desire for control’ is very important. The desire for control in car sharing is less than in private car possession. As mentioned before, it is imaginable that a car is not available at the moment a user wishes to use it. This lowers the ‘control’.

Ellaway et. al. mention the psychological benefits of car using compared to public transport. Therefore, car sharing could be the more favorite choice for people over public transport if owning a personal car is not an option.

Are the consumer’s requirements met?

The most important barriers for consumers during the first momentum according to

Ligtermoet (2003) were:

- A shared car needs to be on walking distance

- A shared car needs to be always available (especially in the evening and the

weekends)

- A shared car should have a short reservation time on before hand

Most initiatives of the first momentum couldn’t meet these requirements and failed.

One-Way

It seems that today’s initiatives are more suited for the consumer’s wishes. The One-

Way-initiatives (Car2Go) score well on all three requirements: the cars are often on

walking distance, because of their good spread over the city. They can be used at any

time of the day, because the reservation– and administration system is completely

automated. The short reservation period is one of Car2Go’s strongest points: a

reservation is not needed. Members can pick up Car2Go’s instantly. On the other

hand, the short maximum reservation time on before hand (max. half an hour) makes

it hard to count on Car2Go for very important drives. It might be too much of a risk to

take a Car2Go to a flight, because you can’t make a reservation one day in advance of

your trip.

Peer-to-Peer

For Peer-to-Peer-initiatives like Snappcar is more difficult to judge on these three requirements, because customers can influence this. The distance of the car is shown

on their website. The availability of the car is not a problem in big cities, since there

are many cars available, but in the countryside this is a problem. In some regions

there are only one or two shared cars available on Snappcar. Consumers can’t make a

reservation on short notice (for example: one hour in advance). A car is mostly rented

for one day or more. This means the flexibility is low, but on the other hand, the

prices are also low.

Classic

Classic car sharing (like Greenwheels) meets the requirements. Cars are parked all over cities, and are 24/7 available. Reservations can be made until one hour in advance. However, the renting time is not very flexible, because after your reservation

time, someone else could have reserved the car. This means you need to bring back

the car one time; otherwise you will get a fine.

For which consumers (geographically) is car sharing an option?

One-Way

The only OneWay-initiative is Car2Go. Car2Go is only active in the center parts of

Amsterdam. The service area of Amsterdam is limited to the parts inside the ring road

around Amsterdam. This means Car2Go is –at this moment– not an option for the

Randstad region or the Netherlands in total.

Peer-to-Peer

The availability of Peer-to-Peer is best shown by Snappcar, which claims it has 8744

cars available in 890 cities. This would mean that Snappcar is an option for (almost)

every city in the Netherlands.

In a column for the ‘NRC Handelsblad’, a Dutch newspaper, Erwin Wijman writes

that car sharing only happens in Amsterdam. His column is a reaction on another

article in the NRC Q with the title: ‘Nobody buys a car, everybody shares!’.

According to Erwin Wijman, the ‘Consumentenbond’ (an association that promotes

consumer protection), is not a big fan of Snappcar.

“The offering of cars outside the Randstad region is disappointing. In rural area’s,

you often need to travel tens of kilometers to pickup the car. That is hard without a

car (Consumentenbond, 2013).

Erwin Wijman, living in Purmerend (a small city 15 km near Amsterdam). Tried a

few car-sharing providers. Snappcar, WeGo and MyWheels are only offering cars in

Amsterdam. This shows that car sharing is most attractive in big cities, and especially

Amsterdam.

Classic

The classic car-sharing providers are traditionally very centered around big cities.

They need many people living around a car to be profitable. A view on the

distribution of Greenwheels, gives a clear oversight:

Figure 15: Distribution of Greenwheels (Greenwheels.nl, 2014)

The Randstad region is the best served area. Rural areas are not part of Greenwheels’

distribution.

Which consumers are generally interested in car sharing?

The consumers can be clustered in many different ways. Two ways are described

before: The Mentaliy Model and the Generation Model.

Mentality Model by Motivaction

The Mentality Model by Motivaction defines different groups, based on two axes:

values and status. The composition of the groups differs between regions. For

example: Social climbers and Cosmopolitans are more likely to be found in a city

than in suburban areas. The difference between the countywide composition and the

Randstad region composition is shown in the table…

Table 3: Mentality Model; The Netherlands vs Randstad

Region The Netherlands Randstad New conservatives 8% 4% Cosmopolitans 13% 18% Traditional Bourgeois 13% 9% Modern Bourgeois 22% 9% Convenience Oriented 10% 9% Social Climbers 15% 34% Post-materialists 9% 4% Postmodern hedonists 9% 13%

The Cosmopolitans, Postmodern hedonists and Social Climbers are more present in the Randstad region than in The Netherlands as total. All three groups have in common that a car is not as important as it is for other groups. They all travel with public transport without too much trouble. These groups are the best target market for car sharing, because they rather don’t own a car but would like to be able to use it time to time. Companies like Snappcar, Greenwheels and Car2Go should focus on these groups.

Other groups, like Convenience Oriented, Traditional Bourgeois, Modern Bourgeois and New Conservatives are less likely to live in the Randstad region. They often live outside the big cities. They all have in common that the car is important. For some groups the car is just a functional transportation option (Traditional Bourgeois), for other groups a car is a status symbol (Modern Bourgeois). It would be hard for car sharing providers to convince these people to share cars. There is no real need for them to share a car in terms of parking space or costs.

The Post-Materialists are the only people who are not attached to car use, but don’

live in big cities. They would rather avoid using a car and only use it when it’s their

only choice. Most Post-Materialists live in small or middle-sized cities. This group is

not well served by car sharing companies at the moment. Companies like

Greenwheels or Car2Go are probably not able to invest in small cities, due to the lack

of potential members. However, Peer-to-Peer-companies like Snappcar could serve this group very well, because of their set-up. For example, if Snappcar could convince the Convenience Oriented (low-income) to share their car with Post-Materialists

(environmentally concerned), they could succeed in these smaller cities.

Generation Model

In the generation model, people are distinguished by age. The most important generation for the near future is ‘Generation Y’ or ‘the Millenial Generation’. This generation has been born between 1980 and 1995.

“Snappcar doesn’t target specific target groups, but we see that the most important user group is from ‘Generation Y’. Those are the people that find information on

Internet. They don’t see a car as a status symbol, and are willing to share it.”

(Hendrik-Jan Glerum, Snappcar)

Generation Y’s preferences are more linked to flexibility. It’s likely that this generation is perfectly suited for car sharing. Owning a car gives flexibility, but having all transport options available gives even more flexibility. If this generation

indeed starts car sharing on a bigger scale, this could mean the breakthrough of car

sharing in the Netherlands.

What are the opinions of consumers about car sharing?

The opinions mentioned below are collected via small interviews on the street and

Internet, for example via Facebook, Twitter, and websites like Consumentenbond.nl,

Kassa.nl etc.

Car sharing in general

While some people are big fans of car sharing, others don’t take it serious. Not

surprisingly, visitors of Autoweek.nl, a Dutch website for car fanatics, are generally not enthusiastic about car sharing.

“I don’t share my wife with somebody else, I don’t share my house with somebody else, so I won’t share my car with somebody else. If you want to drive a nice car, you will need to earn it yourself” (lennie, Autoweek.nl, 2014).

However, even some car fanatics see possibilities:

“Could be handy (and cheap), right? For example instead of a second car.” (Paulus

S., Autoweek.nl, 2014)

According to a research conducted by Autoscout24, 2/3rd of the population doesn’t

like the idea of sharing a car. 1/3rd, generally around 30 years old, does like the idea.

Jurgen Vughts, director Autoscout24 in the Netherlands:

“The number of car sharing-initiatives has grew a lot the past months, but the Dutch

seem to need some more time to get used to the idea. The choice to share a car seems

to be mainly driven by cost savings. The number of respondents who reported they

don’t value privacy in their car is small.”(Bovag, 30-06-2014).

OneWay (Car2Go)

The overall opinion about Car2Go is that this initiative works, but in very specific cases. The cars can’t be used outside of Amsterdam, and Car2Go is too expensive for long drives. On the Facebook page of Car2Go, customers mainly complain about the procedures and technical difficulties.

Henry Mentink, MyWheels:

“Car2Go is the only initiative that works really good. The combination of eclectically-driven cars, paying per minute or kilometer, and the One-Way drives are ideal for the big cities” (Henry Mentink).

Peer-to-Peer

The hype about Snappcar that dominated the media for about a year seems to recoil since June 2014. The ‘Financieel Dagblad’ stated: “The supply seems to lag behind the demand”. Erwin Wijman in NRC Handelsblad: “Snappcar doesn’t work” (NRC,

28-06-2014).

In 2013, Consumentenbond published an article about Snappcar. They described

Snappcar as: “Noble, but not functioning perfectly. Not every car that seems available is indeed available.” (Consumentenbond.nl 14-05-2013).

Also customers are not always happy with Snappcar. The reactions on the

Consumentenbond article are mostly negative. Some users say their insurance

company stopped their insurance when they found out the car was placed on

Snappcar. Other people complain about the registration process on the website of

Snappcar.

Pascal Ontijd, co-founder of Snappcar wrote a blogpost (30-06-2014) about the negative articles in the media. He says Snappcar grows with 20% each month, and blames the media for using wrong numbers. He states that even established car manufacturers are convinced about the future of car sharing.

Indeed, Ford CEO Bill Ford said:

“I believe that the freedom of mobility does not necessarily equate with the freedom of individual ownership” (Bill Ford, Tegenlicht, 16-02-2014).

Overall, it is hard to say who is right. Snappcar is probably thickening their growth rates to meet the hype, while opponents try to suppress the hype because they are afraid the private car will vanish. Fact is that Peer-to-Peer car sharing creates more fuzz than all other concept together.

Classic

The classic initiatives, led by Greenwheels, are growing slowly in a regular pace. The

‘car sharing hype’ seems to pass by the classic initiatives. According to the growth rates presented by KPVV (figure 11) the classic form of car sharing has stabilized since 2011. It seems that classic car sharing has a stable, happy group of consumers.

The opinions about classic car sharing are in most cases the same as for car sharing in general.

Is the ‘Second Momentum’ of car sharing different from the ‘First Momentum’?

First Momentum

The first momentum of car sharing is the period between 1993 and 1995 in which there was an outbreak of new car sharing initiatives. As explained before, there were too much barriers for consumers to grow to a mature state. Also the Dutch government had unrealistic expectations, and quit the stimulation program due to disappointing results. That was the beginning of a period with relative low attention for car sharing.

Second Momentum

The second momentum of car sharing is the period from 2010 till today. There are new initiatives on the market, like Car2Go and Snappcar and media are writing non- stop about car sharing.

In which phase of the product life cycle (Levitt) were both momenta?

The Product Life Cycle is a concept by Levitt that explains the different phases a product goes through. There is no time period given per phase. This can vary from weeks to decades. Perreault (2008) describes four important phases: Introduction,

Growth, Maturity and Decline.

First Momentum

The First Momentum probably got stuck in the Introduction phase. The Growth phase is usually a phase were the product becomes profitable. After the introduction, the shared car never became profitable and this is the reason most initiatives failed.

Second Momentum

In the Second Momentum, car sharing got another chance. The trends in the society

created room for a new introduction of the shared car principle. Therefore, the phases

of the Product Life Cycle can be judged again. Most new initiatives are almost in the

phase where they become profitable:

“In Amsterdam, Car2Go is almost profitable. Since the introduction we were losing money, but at the moment we are almost break-even” (Huub Dubbelman, Car2Go,

BNR Nieuwsradio, 26-02-2014)

“I think we are between Introduction and Growth. The pace of growth is going up and we are almost at the point that we stop losing money. I expect that the real phase of growth still lies before us” (Hendrik-Jan Glerum, Snappcar)

“Car sharing is about to grow very hard the coming time. You can see it in the media, they are writing so much about it now. I think the Growth phase is coming soon.”

(Henry Mentink, MyWheels)

Considered the quotes above, it seems that the Growth phase has not been reached yet. Since the new initiatives (Car2Go and Snappcar) are not profitable yet, they are both in the Introduction phase. Both companies are convinced that their business will become profitable soon. This will probably cause a new growth. However, with the

First Momentum in mind, nothing is for sure.

Is the government more supportive?

According to Iris Kerremans, the city of Amsterdam is trying to renew the policy on car sharing. Since March 2014 all districts in Amsterdam are combined under one municipality. Iris Kerremans’ job is to evaluate all different policies of the past years and come up with one overall policy for the whole city of Amsterdam. This could mean that Amsterdam is becoming more supportive for car sharing. At least, the policies will be more standardized across the city.

In 1995 it was hard for companies to convince the city of the benefits of car sharing.

Greenwheels lobbied a lot, and made possible that certain parking spaces were reserved for Greenwheels only.

At this moment, Amsterdam is supporting car sharing more than it was during the

First Momentum. For example in IJburg, Amsterdam reserves parking spaces for shared cars. Those parking spaces can contain a Greenwheels car, but also a private shared car through Peer-to-Peer sharing. These are all small regulations that can help the car sharing business take off.

“The city could provide less parking space than we think is needed in a certain neighborhood. You can force people into other forms of transport, like car sharing with such measures.” (Iris Kerremans, DIVV)

The reason that Amsterdam is focusing extra on car sharing nowadays, is because companies like Snappcar are changing the market. Greenwheels is not the only party anymore. It is not likely that Amsterdam will choose a company to partner with.

Regulations about public tenders make deals with one– or a few companies a no-go. 87

The big cities of the Randstad region, Amsterdam, Utrecht, Den Haag en Rotterdam, held a meeting this year to exchange opinions and experiences about car sharing, which was organized by DIVV. The results are not public yet, but probably the policies will be better tuned across cities. That would make it easier for car sharing companies to serve the Randstad as a whole, instead of different cities independently.

Is the business more profitable than it was before?

First Momentum

During the ‘First Momentum’ a lot of initiatives were founded. According to the report ‘Deelauto – De stand van zaken’, there were 16 different initiatives in 250.

However, except from Greenwheels, it seems that most car sharing initiatives failed or changed to regular car rent. Ligtermoet (2003) made clear that most consumer requirements were not met and therefore car sharing didn’t grow to a mature business.

With the whole business not evolving from the ‘Introduction phase’ to the ‘Growth phase’ (Levitt), the business as a whole didn’t become profitable. Even the successful exception Greenwheels always stayed a niche product.

“The growth rate of Greenwheels was 30 – 40% a year. In percentage terms, that seems like a lot, but in absolute size it is not that big. In fact, it is just a niche market.” (Henry Mentink, MyWheels).

Second Momentum

During the current momentum, it stands out that big companies fund a lot of initiatives. Most of the big companies are related to the car business. For example,

Daimler, Atlon and Pon are active in the Netherlands. This could indicate that the car manufacturers (Daimler) and car importers (Pon) foresee a shift in the market. Also the Bill Ford’s quote gives some insight in this matter:

“I believe that the freedom of mobility does not necessarily equate with the freedom of individual ownership” (Bill Ford, Tegenlicht, 16-02-2014).

Snappcar needed 100.000 euro to enter other European countries and used a crowd funding website (oneplanetcrowd.nl) to raise the money. It was a huge success, and

Snappcar managed to collect 477 investors with a total of 558.625 euro. It seems that people do not only like the idea of Snappcar, but also trust the profitability on the long term.

Greenwheels is also partially bought by one of the biggest companies in the Dutch car business. On 3rd of May 2012, Greenwheels stated that Pon bought ‘a substantial part’ of Greenwheels. The exact size of the share in Greenwheels never came out. A year later, Pon transferred 60% of their share in Greenwheels to Volkswagen through the establishment of a joint venture between Volkswagen and Pon.

Pon declared in a press statement:

“With our share in Greenwheels, Pon enters a fast growing market. Not only for consumers, but also for companies the attention for car sharing is growing.

Companies expect smarter ways to deal with mobility from their employees. 89

Greenwheels can fulfill an important role in their wish.” (Janus Smalbraak, CEO Pon

Holdings, Greenwheels.com)

It seems that during the second momentum the big car-business-related companies have woken up. While during the first momentum their attitude was very ‘wait-and- see’, during the second momentum they try to be ahead of the big breakthrough and start investing massively. While consumers might still doubt about the added value of car sharing, investors expect company-employees to make the change.

Concluding, it is difficult to say whether the business is more profitable than before, but the massively investments made by companies in the car business suggest that there is a difference in their vision on car sharing.

Is car sharing able to solve the problems mentioned in the introduction?

Excessive use of public space

As mentioned in the introduction, cars are –on average– parked for 95% of the time.

In Amsterdam, 85% of the cars are parked on the street. This causes car parking to use about 24% of all space available in the city. Greenwheels tried to claim parking spaces exclusively for their own cars, but this wasn’t so easy:

“In the beginning, Greenwheels needed a lot of lobbying before they finally got some parking lots. There was some resistance, because every Greenwheels parking lot, took one parking lot away from the residents. Later, we discovered that every car-sharing

parking space freed 3.14 ordinary parking spaces. Which means the gain is 2.14 parking spaces per shared car.” (Iris Kerremans, DIVV Amsterdam).

In Amsterdam, car sharing has a total of 800 – 1000 parking spaces, except Car2go, because the parking permit of Car2Go is citywide. This means car sharing freed up a total of 1712 – 2140 parking spaces. Written questions from councilor A.H. van

Drooge stated that Amsterdam has a total of 126.000 parking spaces. The city of

Amsterdam tries to reduce that number by removing parking spaces. For the coming years, Amsterdam has plans to remove 2000 parking spaces. This is partially done by transferring parking spaces from the street to parking garages, but also car sharing is one of the available options.

Conclusion

Yes, car sharing can reduce the use of public space by cars, but the effect wasn’t very big the past years. Approximately 1,35% - 1,70% of the parking spaces has been freed up because of car sharing.

Congestion, Air pollution and Safety

A doctoral thesis written by Rens Meijkamp in 1998 stated that people use a shared car less than an owned car, especially when they first owned a car:

“Most of the difference is contributed by people who previously ran their own car.

These users see their car mileage drop by no less than two thirds, from an average of

13,380 kilometres to 4,730 kilometres per year. This is not to say that these people became less mobile. On the contrary, the total number of trips even increased by

13%, but the group now uses other forms of transport to get around, including

bicycles (+ 9%), trains (+ 25%), and buses (+ 25%). Overall, the reduction in

environmental impact is approximately 40 percent compared with the average

Dutch household.” (Rens Meijkamp, 1998).

Using public transport instead of a car has an effect on congestion and safety (less cars on the road), air pollution (less environmental impact). Governments try to shift people from private car transport to public transport for years, and contrary to the idea that offering a shared car makes people use it more, car sharers are more inclined to make a consideration between public transport and car use. This is also an effect Iris

Kerremans (DIVV Amsterdam) noticed:

“Car sharing has an effect on the train for long distances, but on local public transport the effect is very small. People that didn’t own a car but are now using a shared car are using public transport less, because they suddenly have the possibility to use a car. But people that had a car and are now using a shared car, are using public transport more. They now make a tradeoff between using a car and using public transport. And they discover that public transport is quite a good alternative.

So car sharing is not really a replacement for public transport.” (Iris Kerremans,

DIVV Amsterdam).

It seems that the effect on air pollution is most measureable. According to Meijkamp

(2000), the difference in environmental impact between an average Dutch household and a car-sharing household is a reduction of 40%. Meijkamp (2000) says that car sharers drive less kilometers, but Kerremans (DIVV) says that the shared car is sometimes a replacement of the train on long distances. Since congestion usually 92

happens on inter-urban routes, the effect on congestion might also be negative. Either

way, the effect is most likely very small, due to the limited size of car sharing at the

moment.

Traffic Noise and Safety

Cars mainly cause traffic noise. Fewer cars on the road means less traffic noise.

Therefore, the effect described above –people drive less with a shared car– also works for traffic noise. But, there is one effect that probably has an even bigger influence on traffic noise.

Especially Car2Go –but also other car-sharing providers– use electric driven vehicles for their business. Electric cars are extremely quiet, which even made the European

Parliament decide to force electric car builders to add artificial warning sounds to electric vehicles. This would make them safer for pedestrians, especially for visually impaired pedestrians. If car sharing would be combined with electric driving, the effect on traffic noise could be extreme and might even be unsafe.

What do the interviewed key persons think about the future of car sharing?

During the interviews, all respondents were asked what their vision on car use and car possession is for the future. Their ideas are presented below:

Hendrik-Jan Glerum – Snappcar

Glerum thinks that Peer-to-Peer car sharing like Snappcar could be the transition

towards a nationwide commercial Oneway car sharing system.

“I think the ‘self-driving car’, is very important in the future. For example Google is experimenting a lot with that. I think you can become a member at a car manufacturer, Volkswagen for example, and that they deliver you a car only when you need it. That car can drive itself to your home and within ten minutes, you have a car.

And whether you need a minivan or a cabriolet, that doesn’t matter, because

Volkswagen offers it all.” (Hendrik-Jan Glerum, Snappcar).

Henry Mentink – MyWheels

Mentink is confident that private car possession will always continue to exist, but he also sees the change from Peer-to-Peer car sharing to commercial car sharing.

“I think that private car posession wil always continue to exist, but more like a hobby.

Just like horseriding isn’t our main way of transport anymore, but there will always be hobbyists. The transition from Peer-to-Peer car sharing to Oneway car sharing could happen. Companies could stimulate car sharing with their lease vehicles. If they would share those cars, car sharing could grow very fast.” (Henry Mentink,

MyWheels)

Iris Kerremans – DIVV, Amsterdam

Iris Kerremans thinks that the sharing economy will also take over car possession.

“Our generation is more thinking in using instead of owning. We share tools, food, movies, music etc. And cars. They are so expensive, there’s no parking space etc. So if you can rent a car just when you need it that would be great.” (Iris Kerremans,

DIVV).

She thinks car sharing could be both Peer-to-Peer and commercial.

“I think it’s depending on the type of consumer. Not everybody likes it to drive somebody else’s car, because of smoking, dog hairs etc. And if you value electric diving a lot, you use Car2Go or select ‘Electric’ at Snappcar. But if you are all about price, you can pick the cheapest option. So I think everybody can choose for their favorite option that way. And whether you use a membership or not, that could be depending on your use frequency. Therefore, I think different options and competition are very important.” (Iris Kerremans, DIVV).

Sacha Oerlemans – Qpark

Sacha Oerlemans thinks car possession will stay the same, but she sees a shift from

‘car as status symbol’ towards ‘car as utensil’.

“Car possession is still going up. 0.8 cars on average per household slowly grows to

1.2 cars on average. The growth is declining, but it is still growth. Especially small households are responsible for the growth. Also, car possession hasn’t become more expensive than public transport. What I mean is that the increase in costs of public transport is way higher than the costs of car possession over time. But there is a change in the car as ‘status symbol’. Kids no longer hang car posters above their beds. The idea that a car shows your personality is gone. So the car moves from a

‘status symbol’ towards a normal utensil.” (Sacha Oerlemans, Q-Park).

Conclusion

While some stakeholders think that car sharing is the most promising option for the future, others disagree. Both Snappcar and MyWheels think that commercial car sharing in the future could be an option. Iris Kerremans (DIVV Amsterdam) is also very positive about car sharing. However, all these three stakeholders might be influenced by their position and see the future in pink colors. Sacha Oerlemans (Q- park) is much more reserved. She thinks private car possession is much more likely to be the winner on the long term and she sees car sharing as the hobby.

It is clear that also the stakeholders don’t see one clear perspective for the future. And if car sharing would be the most popular option, it would still be the question which model of car sharing would have the best chance for success.

VI. Conclusion

In this part the research question will be answered. The research question of this paper

is:

“How did car sharing develop over the past years and which car-sharing model

has the best chances of success in the coming years?”

The research question will be answered in two parts. First part:

I. How did car sharing develop over the past years?

As shown in the discussion section, there are two big moments in car sharing

noticeable: the ‘First Momentum’ and the ‘Second Momentum’. Between these

momenta there are a lot of differences. The biggest problems and barriers consumers

encountered during the first momentum are solved in the second momentum. New

initiatives like Car2Go (One-Way) are a huge improvement on the initiatives of the

First Momentum and are far more suited for the consumers needs. Looking back,

those initiatives are more extending renting services than real car sharing initiatives.

Today’s shared cars are almost always available on a walking distance.

However, the big problem of car sharing is that it is still very centered around the

Randstad region. Peer-to-Peer car sharing should be available in the whole country, but it turns out that even those initiatives are very clustered around the big cities. For people in the countryside of the Netherlands, car sharing is not really an option. For companies like Greenwheels it is not profitable to invest in a car in small villages, because there are not enough members. More important: in such small villages a car is 97

very important to be part of social life. For example: people need a car to do grocery

shopping, because the store could be a few kilometers far. According to CBS, the average distance to a supermarket in the Randstad region is 0.7 to 0.8 kilometer, and more than 1.2 kilometer in Friesland or Drenthe. This makes personal car use a must- have.

Conclusion

Car sharing has grown a lot, initiatives better suit the consumer’s needs and there is more choice in the kind of model of car sharing. However, this is still only the case in

the more urbanized regions (Randstad) and not in de countryside of the Netherlands.

Because of that it seems that car sharing can only be a success in the Randstad region.

II. Which car-sharing model has the best chances of success in

coming years?

There are roughly four models in the car sharing business:

- Classic

- Peer-to-Peer

- One-Way

- General Partnership (non-commercial)

All different models of car sharing have their own ideal situation. Depending on the

requirements of the consumer. Because every situation asks for a different solution,

there is not one favorite model of car sharing.

Classic

The classic form of car sharing is very suitable for people who tried to share a car

with neighbors but couldn’t find enough members or don’t like the administrative

hassle. Classic car sharing initiatives (like Greenwheels) can take care of finding

members and cost allocation. This type of car sharing isn’t bound to city limits. This

model exists for over 20 year. It is not to be expected that this form of car sharing will

grow the coming years. The number of users is stable since 2011, while other forms

are growing.

Peer-to-Peer

This type of car sharing makes it possible to rent cars from other people. This means

that probably all types of cars are available. Theoretically speaking, this type of car

sharing is even suitable for the countryside, but it turned out that available cars in the

countryside are mostly on far distance. This makes Snappcar most suitable for people

living in big cities (Randstad), but they probably already have a better option with less

hassle and reservation time like Classic– or One-Way car sharing. Peer-to-Peer car sharing probably has the most potential for growing, but there is a huge threat of becoming a ‘fad’. It could turn out to be ideal for renting a wedding car of a special sports car just for one day.

One-Way

Car sharing was given a new impulse with the introduction of One-Way car sharing.

Powered by new trends, like Internet and smartphones, it was no longer needed to know exactly where people park the car. With GPS and a smartphone application that

tells you where to find the car, a fixed parking space is no longer needed. One-Way car sharing is only suited for big cities, because there must be enough possible consumers per square meter to have a profitable service area. For Car2Go this means

Amsterdam is the only Dutch city at the moment. Because Car2Go’s in the

Netherlands are fully electrical driven, a good network of charging points is required.

This makes Car2Go very dependent on external factors and limits their expanding options. However, for people visiting or living in Amsterdam, this car-sharing program is one of the best choices available. Unfortunately, Car2Go’s are bound at city limits. Inside the city, Car2Go could become the perfect complement to public transport. This model of car sharing can never be nationwide. Therefore, the expending options in the Netherlands are not extensive. Probably a few other cities, like Utrecht, Den Haag or Rotterdam are eligible for One-Way car sharing.

General Partnership (non-commercial)

The ‘General Partnership’ is similar to the ‘Classic’ model. The most important difference is that there is no company to arrange parking space, take care of insurance and allocate costs. This means trust is very important. Therefore this model is most suited for neighbors or relatives, who live close by. It is not to be expected that this form will grow for the coming years.

III. Concluding

All four models of car sharing have their advantages and disadvantages. While Peer-

to-Peer car sharing is growing the most for the last years, their future is still

undecided. The hype about Peer-to-Peer car sharing is big, and the risk of becoming a

100

‘fad’ product is still present. If they can manage the problems motioned before, they

will have the biggest chance on success. One-Way car sharing is probably the best functioning model of car sharing, but it needs a very high density in its service area.

Therefore, the success is very limited.

Overall, car sharing has the possibilities to ease some car related problems, but it will never become a nationwide solution, due to the needed conditions for car sharing and specific type of consumers that can only be found in the Randstad region.

In that region, car sharing could become an important complement on public transport, but much will depend on whether people finally want to give up their

private car ownership, and if they feel that car sharing also fulfills their affective and

symbolic needs.

IV. Reccomendation for further research

In this research, the question if people feel that car sharing can fulfill their affective

and symbolic needs is still open. This is a very important question to determine the

success of car sharing in the future. The findings of a quantitative study under the

different consumer groups determined by Motivaction (as presented in this paper)

combined with the findings of this study, would complete the total overview of the

feasibility of car sharing in the Randstad region.

101

VII. Recommendations for the industry

I. ‘The Collaboration’

One-Way car sharing (Car2Go) has a big disadvantage: it is bound to city limits. This makes Car2Go for a lot of people an irrelevant option. On the other hand; Classic car sharing (Greenwheels) misses the possibility to grab a car for a small ride, not planned on beforehand. This is something Car2Go is great for.

Both options should work together, to supplement each other. They are not really

competitors, because their way of use is totally different. If a Car2Go user could use

Greenwheels for long drives out the city, and a Greenwheels user could use Car2Go

for short drives in the city, both parties will profit from this collaboration.

II. ‘GVB as market leader’

The city of Amsterdam has placed a limit on the number of ‘One-Way’ car sharing vehicles; 350 per provider, 750 in total. This means that Car2Go (300+) is almost at its limit. The reason behind this is to protect possible competitors and to make sure

Car2Go doesn’t reach a monopoly position. However, it is very difficult to match the service level of Car2Go. Therefore, it is almost already impossible to become a

Car2Go competitor and chances are nobody will dare to try. Now, the limit is only keeping Car2Go from enlarging the service area.

102

The city of Amsterdam has two choices. One: cancel the limit and let Car2Go grow to

a company that can service the whole of Amsterdam, instead only the city center.

There are numerous ways to constrain the influence of a monopoly position via

legislation and permits.

The other option is to use the GVB (Gemeentelijk Vervoers Bedrijf), a private

company with the city of Amsterdam as its 100% owner, to operate a One-Way car

sharing initiative. This could become the number one One-Way car-sharing provider in Amsterdam and it can be fully controlled by the municipality. Since One-Way car sharing is a perfect supplement on public transport, the GVB would be the best company to do this. The prices could be at cost-price level, because the GVB doesn’t need to make a profit. This could encourage people to use it even more.

III. ‘Q-Park as Transition Station’

Sacha Oerlemans of Q-Park stated that she doesn’t think Q-Park should have an

active role in car sharing, because their core business is parking and not renting. But

there could be an opportunity for Q-Park as hub-function for car sharing. Especially

the One-Way car sharing provides an opportunity for Q-Park. The parking garages could become the central system of home locations for the electric vehicles, where there’s a guaranteed parking space with charging station and where consumers can always find an available car. They already have the best locations (Dam Square,

Museum Square, Byzantium). In a later stadium, these parking garages could become a transition place, where people park their ordinary car and move into an electric vehicle (from GVB). This idea is somewhat related to ‘Witkar’, but with help of new technologies it is much easier to operate.

103

VIII. References

Adviesgroep Verkeer en Vervoer. (1993). De haalbaarheid van het call-A-car concept. (). Nieuwegein: AGV.

Algemeen Dagblad. (2008, 17/01/2008). Succes greenwheels door mond-tot- mondreclame. Algemeen Dagblad

Anable, J. (2005). ‘Complacent car addicts’ or ‘aspiring environmentalists’? identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport Policy, 12(1), 65-78.

Autodelen.nl. (2014). Car sharing nog niet erg populair. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://www.autoweek.nl/nieuws/28901/car-sharing-nog-niet-erg-populair

Beirão, G., & Sarsfield Cabral, J. A. (2007). Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study. Transport Policy, 14(6), 478-489. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.009

Klantenshow 26 februari | sharing economie: Klantenshow 26 februari | sharing economie: (2014).

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd edition ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bureau Onderzoek en Statistiek. (2013). Amsterdam in cijfers, jaarboek 2013 is een productie in van O+S in opdracht van de gemeente amsterdam. ().

Bureau Onderzoek en Statistiek. (2013). Geregistreerde motorvoertuigen, 1 januari 2013. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://www.os.amsterdam.nl/popup/2336 104

CBS. (2013). Geregistreerde motorvoertuigen 1 januari 2013. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://www.os.amsterdam.nl/download/1761-geregistreerde- motorvoertuigen-1-januari-2013

CBS Statline. (2014). Mobiliteit in nederland; mobiliteitskenmerken en vervoerwijzen, regio's. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/selection/?DM=SLNL&PA=81127NED&VW=T

Centre for Economic Policy Research. (2014). Euro area mired in recession pause. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://www.cepr.org/content/euro-area-mired- recession-pause

Chapman, L. (2007). Transport and climate change: A review. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(5), 354-367. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.008

Cition Parkeermanagement. (2014). Wachtlijst parkeervergunningen. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from https://www.cition.nl/main.php?obj_id=442832490

Consumentenbond. (2013). Snappcar: Eerste indruk. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://www.consumentenbond.nl/test/auto-vrije-tijd/auto/autos/snappcar/snappcar/

de Bovag Krant. (2014). Nederland loopt nog niet echt warm voor autodelen. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://www.bovagkrant.nl/verhuur/item/30877- nederland-loopt-nog-niet-echt-warm-voor-autodelen?tmpl=component&print=1

Den Boer, L., & Schroten, A. (2007). Traffic noise reduction in europe. Health Effects, Social Costs and Technical and Policy Options to Reduce Road and Rail Traffic Noise.CE Delft,

Edvardsson, B. (1998). Causes of customer dissatisfaction-studies of public transport by the critical-incident method. Managing Service Quality, 8(3), 189-197.

105

Ellaway, A., Macintyre, S., Hiscock, R., & Kearns, A. (2003). In the driving seat: Psychosocial benefits from private motor vehicle transport compared to public transport. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6(3), 217-231.

Factsheet: Hoe verplaatst de amsterdammer zich? (2013). . Amsterdam: Dienst Infrastructuur Verkeer en Vervoer.

Gardner, B., & Abraham, C. (2007). What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of commuters’ reasons for driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10(3), 187-200. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2006.09.004

Geijtenbeek. (2009). Parkeren in de binnenstad. (Publicaties Stadsdeelbestuur). Amsterdam: Stadsdeel Centrum.

Google. (2013). Our mobile planet: Netherlands. ().Ipsos MediaCT.

Greenwheels.nl. (2014). Pon neemt aanmerkelijk belang in greenwheels. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from https://www.greenwheels.com/nl/Home/Particulieren/over- ons/Nieuws/Pon-neemt-aanmerkelijk-belang-in-Greenwheels

Guiver, J. W. (2007). Modal talk: Discourse analysis of how people talk about bus and car travel. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(3), 233-248.

Hagman, O. (2003). Mobilizing meanings of mobility: Car users’ constructions of the goods and bads of car use. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 8(1), 1-9.

Hensher, D. A., Stopher, P., & Bullock, P. (2003). Service quality––developing a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(6), 499-517.

106

Borger, J. (Producer), & Kieft, M. (Director). (2014, 16/02/2014). Tegenlicht: Hoe raken wij de auto kwijt? [Video/DVD] KRO.

Kluwer. (2014). EU gaat zich bemoeien met de deeleconomie. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from kluwer.be

König, A., & Axhausen, K. W. (2002). The reliability of the transportation system and its influence on the choice behaviour. Swiss Transport Research Conference (STRC), Monte Verità/Ascona,

KPVV. (2013). Autodelen: KpVV dashboard duurzame en slimme mobiliteit. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://kpvvdashboard-4.blogspot.nl/

Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

Ligermoet, D. (2013). Tien jaar stimulering van gedeeld autogebruik, geschiedenis en resultaten. (). Gouda: Ligermoet+Louwerse bv.

May, A., & Marsden, G. (2010). Urban Transport and Mobility, Meijkamp, R. (1998). Changing consumer behaviour through eco‐efficient services: An empirical study of car sharing in the netherlands. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(4), 234-244.

Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. (2013). Autodelen: Vaker kiezen voor groene alternatieven. (Factsheet). Den Haag: Beterbenutten.nl.

Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer. (2010). Beperking geluidsoverlast uitlaatsystemen brommers en motoren, een onderzoek naar interventiemogelijkheden. ( No. 0180). Den Haag: Vrom-inspectie.

Motivaction. (2014). Mentality brochure. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://www.motivaction.nl/sites/default/files/mentalitybrochure.pdf 107

Paternotte, J., & Groot Wassink, R. (2014). Hervormingsagenda 2014-2018. (). Amsterdam:

Perreault, W. D., Cannon, J. P., & McCarthy, E. J. (2008). Essentials of marketing: A marketing strategy planning approach McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Price Waterhouse Coopers. (2013). PwC's NextGen: A global generational study. ().London Business School.

Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2010). Wie ik ben en waar ik ga. ( No. 978-90- 77323-19-9).RLI. redactie. (). Het bedrijfsplan van greenwheels ontleed. Emerce

Rijkswaterstaat Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer. (1996). Brochure deelauto: De stad van zaken. (). Rotterdam:

Sandqvist, K., & Kriström, S. (2001). Getting along without a family car. The Role of Automobile in Adolescents’ Experience and Attitudes.Part I.Inner City Stockholm.Stockholm, Sweden: Institutionen För Individ, Omvärld Och Lärande,

Staal, P. 1. (2003). Automobilisme in nederland : Een geschiedenis van gebruik, misbruik en nut / peter-eloy staal. Zutphen: Zutphen : Walburg Pers.

Steg, L. (2005). Car use: Lust and must. instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2–3), 147-162. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2004.07.001

Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid. (2013). SWOV-factsheet ernstig verkeersgewonden in nederland. (). Leidschendam: SWOV.

Straver, F. (2007, 14/11/2007). Provo-vervoer krijgt erkenning. Trouw 108

Straver, F. (2007, 14/11/2007). Provo-vervoer krijgt erkenning. Trouw Retrieved from http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/archief/article/detail/1666816/2007/11/14/Pro vo-vervoer-krijgt-erkenning.dhtml

Suiker, S., & van den Elshout, J. (2013). Effectmeting introductie Car2Go in amsterdam. (). Amsterdam: Nationaal Verkeerskunde Congres.

Swanson, J., Ampt, L., & Jones, P. (1997). Measuring bus passenger preferences. Traffic Engineering & Control, 38(6), 330-336.

UNAIDS. (2006). Air quality guidelines: Global update 2005 : Particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur Dioxide A EURO publication World Health Organization.

University of California Berkely, Transportation Sustainability Research Center.Carsharing. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://tsrc.berkeley.edu/carsharing

Van Zanten, W., & de Veth, J. (2013). Economische wegwijzer. ().TNO & EVO.

Wijman, E. (2014, 28/06/2014). Dat autodelen gebeurt alleen in amsterdam. NRC Handelsblad

World Health Organization. (2009). In World Health Organization (Ed.), Global health risks: Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major Risksnonserial publication series World Health Organization.

Woudenberg, F., Van der Zee, S., & Dijkema, M. (2008). Trends in concentraties PM10 en NO2 in amsterdam periode 1999-2007 . (). Amsterdam: GGD Amsterdam.

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research, design and methods (4th edition ed.) Sage: Thousands Oaks. 109

IX. Appendices

I. General interview topics

• Hoe is het autodelen van de grond gekomen? Voorheen was een

persoonlijke auto in veel landen een essentieel deel van het leven. Hoe

komt het dat mensen nu bereid zijn om dat op te geven?

• Welke groepen mensen zijn er vooral geïnteresseerd in autodelen?

• In welke fase van de product life cycle (Levitt) zit autodelen volgens u?

• Heeft u een beeld van hoeveel personen in Nederland zich bezig

houden met autodelen?

• Hoe denkt u dat autobezit en autogebruik er over 20 jaar uitziet?

• Is - en zo ja hoe - de markt veranderd sinds de introductie van

Snappcar?

• Welke belemmeringen zitten er nog aan autodelen die groei in de weg

staan? Oftewel, wat zou er moeten gebeuren om autodelen een boost

te geven?

110

II. Interview Hendrik-Jan Glerum (Snappcar)

16-04-2014, Utrecht

Hoe is het autodelen van de grond gekomen? Voorheen was een persoonlijke auto in veel landen een essentieel deel van het leven. Hoe komt het dat mensen nu bereid zijn om dat op te geven?

Het eerste initiatief komt uit 1995, en toen sukkelde het eigenlijk nog door. Vanaf de crisis is het gaan groeien, wellicht doordat de kosten hoger werden van een auto.

Daarnaast zien steeds meer mensen de noodzaak in. Mensen willen steeds meer zelf bijdragen aan een schonere wereld.

Welke groepen mensen zijn er vooral geïnteresseerd in autodelen?

Generatie Y. De jonge mensen in de stad die hun informatie via internet opzoeken. Zij zien een auto niet langer als statussymbool.

In welke fase van de product life cycle (Levitt) zit autodelen volgens u?

Tussen Introduction en Growth in. Over een paar maanden is Snappcar waarschijnlijk Break Even. Vanaf dat moment gaan we nog meer investeren. De groei is nu ongeveer 15% per maand.

Heeft u een beeld van hoeveel personen in Nederland zich bezig houden met autodelen?

111

Snappcar heeft ongeveer 70% marktaandeel. Dat betekent dat er ongeveer 10.000 auto’s zijn. Waarschijnlijk houden zo’n 60.000 tot 100.000 mensen zich bezig met autodelen.

Hoe denkt u dat autobezit en autogebruik er over 20 jaar uitziet?

Een abonnement bij een autoproducent is een goede optie. Dat je een abonnement hebt bij bijvoorbeeld Volkswagen, en dat je dan een zelfrijdende auto bestelt. Google is daar al mee bezig, dus dat zal er ooit wel aankomen. Die auto kan dan binnen 10 minuten voor je deur staan. En je kunt de ene keer een busje bestellen, en de andere keer een cabrio. Net wat handig is.

Is - en zo ja hoe - de markt veranderd sinds de introductie van Snappcar?

In het begin moesten we echt op een zeepkistje staan om ons verhaal te doen, maar nu pikt iedereen het ineens op. De krantenartikelen staan ipv op pagina 24 ineens op de voorpagina en iedereen heeft het er nu over.

Welke belemmeringen zitten er nog aan autodelen die groei in de weg staan?

Oftewel, wat zou er moeten gebeuren om autodelen een boost te geven?

Fiscaal zijn er problemen (bijtelling maakt zakelijk delen heel erg moeilijk, inkomen uit het verhuren van je auto is vrijgesteld tot 5000 euro, daarboven wordt het lastiger.

Overheden hebben het heel moeilijk met het inspelen op deze ontwikkelingen.

De verzekering is via Centraal Beheer Achmea geregeld. Op het moment dat de huurder in de auto stapt, neemt onze verzekering alles over. Op dit moment is dat nog

All-risk, dat zou eventueel later kunnen veranderen als consumenten zelf bereid zijn 112

om meer risico te dragen. Op dit moment proberen wij het gebruik van Snappcar zo makkelijk mogelijk te maken, door zoveel mogelijk werk zelf te doen. Boetes betalen wij direct, schades vergoeden we direct, puur om het verhuren van auto’s zo aantrekkelijk mogelijk te maken.

Over Snappcar:

Welke ontwikkelingen in de markt leidden tot de oprichting van Snappcar?

Victor en Pascal hebben ooit heel goed gezien dat hier behoefte aan was. Dat volgde uit de initiatieven zoals Netflix en Spotify, Airbnb etc. De hele sharing economy. Ze zagen dat er ruimte was voor dit principe, maar dan met auto’s.

Hoe staat Snappcar er nu voor? Bijv.: hoeveel leden hebben jullie, hoeveel zijn er daarvan actief, hoe vaak wordt er een auto gedeeld per dag?

We hebben ongeveer 40.000 leden, daar is niet iedereen actief van. We gaan richting hun 10.000ste transactie. Snappcar groeit ongeveer 15% per maand, qua aangemelde auto’s.

Wie ziet u als mede initiators om naar meer gedeeld autogebruik te komen?

Elk initiatief is welkom om autodelen meer onder de aandacht te brengen. Wij kunnen leren van elke concurrent, dat houdt ons scherp. Ik verwelkom elk initiatief dat helpt aan een sharing economy, zelfs als ze zich ook op auto’s richten.

113

Zou Snappcar de overgangsfase kunnen zijn van privaat autobezit naar collectief autobezit, zoals Car2Go of Greenwheels?

Ja dat is goed mogelijk. Het is moeilijk om te zeggen of Snappcar de toekomst heeft, maar als op een gegeven moment niemand meer een auto wil bezitten, heeft Snappcar natuurlijk geen bestaansrecht meer. Misschien hebben we het dan een tijd lang heel goed gedaan, en neemt commercieel autodelen de markt dan over. Voor de komende tijd hebben we in ieder geval nog genoeg te bereiken.

Is de huidige wetgeving genoeg meegaand om Snappcar goed mogelijk te maken?

Welke wetten zouden aangepast kunnen worden om het delen van auto's makkelijker te maken?

Fiscaal is het een en ander mogelijk. Het delen van leaseauto’s is nu nog vrij moeilijk, maar het zou enorm helpen als die ook ooit gedeeld zouden kunnen worden.

Dat is een hele grote groep autobezitters.

Hoe zien jullie Snappcar over 5 / 10 jaar?

Wij zijn nu begonnen in Duitsland en Engeland en we zien in Europa ongeveer 20 andere aanbieders. Daarvan hebben wij er 4 aangemerkt als eventuele serieuze bedreigingen voor later. Daar zien we onszelf wel recht tegenover staan over een aantal jaar. Verder is ons doel om op een geven moment 1% van het aantal auto’s in

Europa te verminderen. Dat zouden er 2.500.000 zijn. Daarvoor moeten we 250.000 auto’s hebben, want elke auto heft ongeveer 10 andere auto’s op. Bepaalde studies hebben aangetoond dat dat ongeveer tussen de 1:8 en 1:13 ligt.

114

III. Interview Henry Mentink (MyWheels en Stichting

Autodelen)

Hoe is het autodelen van de grond gekomen? Voorheen was een persoonlijke auto in veel landen een essentieel deel van het leven. Hoe komt het dat mensen nu bereid zijn om dat op te geven?

Het is begonnen in de jaren ’93. In dat jaar kwam de consumentenbond met een onderzoek dat er in Nederland al 50.000 mensen bezig waren met autodelen. Dat was het delen van een auto met meerderen gezinnen, zonder tussenkomst van een derde partij. Ik hoorde bij die mensen want ik deelde ook een auto. Het Ministerie van

Verkeer wilde dat autodelen professioneler zou gebeuren. In Zwitserland zag je dat al, daar begon het in de jaren 80 al. De Bovag, de ANWB en het Ministerie wilden samenwerken om autodelen van de grond te krijgen maar dat lukte niet. Ik ben uiteindelijk begonnen met stichting gedeeld autogebruik. De stichting hield zich vooral bezig met de parkeerplaatsen zoals wegsleepregelingen, etc. Greenwheels begon in hetzelfde jaar. ANWB begon met auto op afroep maar dat was eigenlijk gewoon veredelde verhuur. Hertz kwam met H2o. Call a car begon ook. Greenwheels groeide met 30 – 40 % per jaar. In procenten is het jarenlang enorm gestegen, niet zo in omvang. Dus in relatieve groeicijfers lijkt dat heel wat, maar eigenlijk is dat gewoon een niche markt. Toen Wheels4all ook begon met auto’s van particulieren begon Snappcar ook (met geld van Atlon). Atlon heeft zich weer teruggetrokken. Zij gingen harder dan verwacht, want ze hebben op dit moment meer auto’s dan leden.

Maar wat je bij Snappcar ziet is dat zo’n 50% oudere auto’s zijn, en daar is het uitleen risico natuurlijk een stuk minder bij. En de aantallen van Snappcar kloppen

115

niet altijd. We hebben dat zelf getest. Als je namelijk een auto aanmeldt, telt te meter er keurig eentje bovenop, maar als je diezelfde auto weer terugtrekt, blijft de meter staan.

Welke groepen mensen zijn er vooral geïnteresseerd in autodelen?

Bij autodelen zijn er twee groepen: de huurders en de verhuurders. Over de huurders weten we dat het vooral de hogere inkomens zijn en met een hoge opleiding. Maar de mensen die hun auto verhuren en hem op de site zetten is niet zo bekend. Dat zou een andere groep kunnen zijn, die dat bijvoorbeeld doen om hun lagere inkomen te compenseren. Dat hebben we niet uitgezocht.

Heeft u een beeld van hoeveel personen in Nederland zich bezig houden met autodelen?

10.000en mensen. Greenwheels heeft zo’n 2500 auto’s. Per auto zijn er zo’n 15 gebruikers, dus Greenwheels heeft waarschijnlijk zo’n 38.000 leden. Bij particulieren ligt die ratio anders, daarbij zijn er per auto zo’n 2 tot 4 gebruikers.

In welke fase van de ‘Product Life Cycle’ denkt u dat autodelen zich momenteel bevindt?

Ik denk dat autodelen nog erg hard kan gaan groeien de komende tijd. Je ziet het eigenlijk al aan de media, want die pakken het nu heel erg op en schrijven veel over autodelen. Dus ik denk dat die groeifase er snel aan zit te komen.

116

Hoe denkt u dat autobezit en autogebruik er over 20 jaar uitziet?

Een aantal dingen: elektrische auto’s en waterstof auto’s zijn te duur om niet te delen.

Dus ik denk dat autodelen vooral bij die auto’s nog wel een vlucht gaat maken. En ik voorzie dat boordcomputers worden ingebouwd door de fabriek zodat delen nog makkelijker is.

Nieuwe technologische vooruitgang zou delen nog makkelijker kunnen maken op die manier. Ook zie ik nog wel iets in het aanklikken op de snelweg en in een treintje rijden. Dat zou vooral de snelheid ten goede kunnen komen.

Is - en zo ja hoe - de markt veranderd sinds de introductie van Mywheels?

Ik zie wel veel imitatiegedrag. Vanuit de stichting gedeeld autogebruik heb ik een regeling gemaakt met Centraal Beheer. Die gebruiken alle autodeelbedrijven nu, ook

Snappcar bijvoorbeeld.

Welke belemmeringen zitten er nog aan autodelen die groei in de weg staan?

Oftewel, wat zou er moeten gebeuren om autodelen een boost te geven?

Een deelauto kun je vergelijken met een taxi zonder chauffeur. Een deelauto is eigenlijk een soort openbaar vervoer. Wettelijk betaalt een taxi 6% belasting, en wij

21% belasting. En op een taxi zit geen BPM, wij betalen dat wel. Dus we worden benadeeld.

Daarnaast wordt de elektrische auto beter gelobbyd. Gevolg daarvan is dat gemeenten meer focussen op elektrische auto’s i.p.v. op deelauto’s. De Car2Go formule springt daar slim op in.

117

Hoe staat MyWheels er nu voor? Bijv.: hoeveel leden hebben jullie, hoeveel zijn er daarvan actief, hoe vaak wordt er een auto gedeeld per dag?

2000 auto’s incl. vereniging gedeeld autogebruik, 5000 actieve leden.

Zou Mywheels de overgangsfase kunnen zijn van privaat autobezit naar collectief autobezit, zoals Car2Go of Greenwheels?

Car2go formule werkt als enige echt goed. De combinatie van elektrisch rijden, betalen per minuut of kilometer en niet terug te hoeven keren naar de startplek is ideaal wat mij betreft voor grote steden.

Ik denk dat particulier autorijden altijd zal blijven bestaan. Paardrijden wordt ook nog steeds gedaan. Wel denk ik dat die overgang heel goed zou kunnen. Bedrijven kunnen dat ook gaan stimuleren met leaseauto’s. Als ze die gaan delen, kan het ineens heel hard gaan met collectief autobezit.

Hoe ziet u MyWheels over 5 / 10 jaar?

Op dit moment zijn we veel bezig met het samenwerken met bedrijven. Dat gaan de grote spelers worden in de toekomst. Die plannen zijn we aan het uitwerken.

Met snappcar concurrenten: tijdje terug gesprek met directeur Greenwheels,

Mywheels en Greenwheels zijn eigenlijk de enige echte deelautobedrijven. Bij ons stimuleren we dat je ook voor een uurtje een auto kunt meenemen. Bij Snappcar betaal je per dag en elke rit vooraf betalen. En met betaling per maand wordt er maar

1 keer een bedrag afgeschreven.

118

IV. Interview Sacha Oerlemans (Q-park)

Autodelen kan aan de ene kant een bedreiging zijn voor parkeergarages (minder

auto’s = minder vraag) maar aan de andere kant ook een enorme kans

(parkeergarages kunnen een hub functie vervullen in het autodelen). Hoe ziet Q-

park dat?

Tot aan 2050 zien wij geen verminderingen in Noord-Europese landen wat betreft

autobezit. Dus de hoeveelheid auto’s groeit licht. En dat ziet er tot 2050 niet uit alsof

het gaat verminderen. Dat is gebaseerd op allerlei dingen, zoals bruto nationaal

product en demographics, maar ook op een op een gesprekken. Als ik bij een

universiteit sta te spreken vraag ik weleens wie er een auto wil, en ze gaan allemaal

over 5 jaar met een auto naar hun werk. Ze vinden dat aan woon-werk verkeer een auto vast moet zitten. De trend van autobezit naar autogebruik is er wel, maar die is niet extreem genoeg dat wij daar ons bedrijfsmodel op aan moeten passen. Ik denk ook dat het verminderde autogebruik van jongeren gecompenseerd wordt door mijn generatie die toch meer gebruik maakt van de auto dan de ouderen van nu. Dus volgens de cijfers die wij nu hebben blijft autogebruik altijd tussen de 83% en de 86% van de kilometers die met de auto worden gedaan.

De verschillen die wij zien is veel meer dat er nu een economische crisis is waarbij er minder te besteden is, en de consument minder op reis gaat. En bedrijven die anders kijken naar leaseauto’s. Dat merken we wel. Maar dat is dus meer macro-economisch

dan het aspect dat mensen anders met mobiliteit omgaan.

119

Hoe ziet u de trend van autodelen?

Ik denk dat die wel gaat doorzetten in een bepaald percentage. Maar ik vraag me af

hoe groot dat gaat worden. Ik denk dat het wel voordelen kan hebben. Ik denk vooral dat bepaalde stedelijke gebieden binnen een bepaald hectare een bepaald aantal mensen hebben. Dus er zijn grafieken die laten zien dat het aantal bewoners binnen een aantal hectokilometers bijna in een rechte hoek is te plaatsen. In gebieden met een hoge dichtheid is het openbaar vervoer zo goed, en het individueel rijden niet veel beter dan is autodelen een super concept. Alleen is het autodelen wel alleen een succes in een zeer specifiek geval, waarbij je steden hebt met een hoge dichtheid. Bij steden waarbij dat veel meer verspreid is zoals Los Angeles of Eindhoven zie je dat individueel autogebruik gelijk heel hard stijgt, omdat het openbaar vervoer ook minder wordt. En zoveel van dat soort grote steden zijn er niet. En je ziet ook dat een

Car2Go concept goed werkt in Amsterdam en Parijs, maar in Londen is dat al weer een stuk lastiger omdat dat al veel meer verspreid is.

Welke verdeling ziet u in mensen die gebruik maken van parkeergarages?

Mijn product is niet anders voor een 18 jarige dan voor een 86 jarige, dus daarop

segmenteren wij niet. Maar we segmenteren wel op doelen. Bijvoorbeeld winkelen of

werk gerelateerd parkeren. Verder hebben we 53% vrouwen en 47% mannen, maar

dat is gemeten in frequentie, niet in parkeertijd.

Hoe denkt u dat autobezit er over 20 jaar uitziet?

Het blijft hetzelfde. Het gaat nog steeds omhoog per huishouden, dus 0,8 wordt

langzaam 1,2 auto per huishouden. De groeicurve daalt wel, maar er zit nog steeds

groei in. En dat heeft voornamelijk te maken met kleine huishoudens. De auto is ook 120

niet duurder geworden dan het openbaar vervoer. Dat wil zeggen: de verhogen van de kosten van het openbaar vervoer zijn vele maler groter dan de kosten van het autobezit over de tijd heen.

Er is wel een verandering in de auto als statussymbool. Kinderen hangen ook geen posters meer van auto’s op hun kamer, dat was een beetje jaren ’70. Er zit ook geen groot ego meer achter, van hoe beter mijn auto, hoe beter ik ben. Dat is er wel een beetje uit. Het is dus minder statussymbool en meer gebruiksvoorwerp.

In Amsterdam is Car2Go geïntroduceerd, en jullie werken daar ook mee samen.

Waarom?

Het is een onderdeel van ons duurzaamheidsbeleid. We willen duurzame projecten ondersteunen, bijvoorbeeld e-cars of hybride cars etc. En carsharing hoort daar ook bij. Uiteindelijk moeten die auto’s ergens staan waar je er ook van op aan kunt dat ‘ie daar staat en carsharing companies willen graag met ons samenwerken. We hebben

Car2Go in Amsterdam en Cambio in Belgie. En wij zijn een commercieel bedrijf, dus als dit commercieel interessant is, zullen we het doen.

Die samenwerking is een soort Store in Store, iets dat wij wel vaker doen met bijvoorbeeld autoruitreparatiebedrijven. We verhuren gewoon een aantal plekken aan een derde. Voor Car2Go houdt bijvoorbeeld in dat ze een speciale plaats krijgen. Met stroomvoorziening bijvoorbeeld. Maar de plaatsen zijn ook iets kleiner dan normaal, want het gaat om Smarts. Car2Go wil ook graag aanwezig zijn met hun merk, en

“gebrande” plekken maken. Dat past natuurlijk niet overal. Ze hebben wel een flink

121

eisenpakket. En soms maakt dat een inbreuk op onze beleving. Ze willen bijvoorbeeld graag bij de ingang staan.

Daarbij is het legaal soms niet altijd even handig. Wij zijn namelijk een verhuurbedrijf, wij verhuren een plaats voor een bepaalde tijd. Daardoor mogen we niet zomaar stroom verkopen. Dat is weer iets anders. Daarom zijn op dit moment onze e-loading stations gratis.

Dus het autobezit en autogebruik dat verandert door carsharing maakt voor ons als parkeerbedrijf niet zoveel uit. Wij zien het nog niet in onze aantallen. In de grote steden zie je iets meer ontwikkeling daarin, maar overall zien wij geen verschillen.

Wij zullen onze strategie daar dus ook niet op aanpassen, maar we willen wel mee met nieuwe initiatieven zoals Car2Go. Het is voor ons geen propositie, maar als we carsharing kunnen faciliteren zullen we het doen, maar wel graag met een grote partij die z’n rekeningen betaald en zich staande kan houden.

Denkt u dat autodelen blijft of is het meer een fenomeen dat nu hip is en waar je over een aantal jaar niks meer van hoort?

Ik denk wel dat het blijft. De achterliggende gedachte is natuurlijk ook niet nieuw.

Het is een beetje het Rabobank fenomeen. Het gaat met alles meer om gebruik dan om bezit. Bijvoorbeeld met een boormachine. Dus ik denk dat dat fenomeen wel blijft bestaan.

Hoe denkt u dat autogebruik en bezit er in de verre toekomt uitziet? Zou het allemaal op collectieve basis kunnen gebeuren? 122

Ik denk het niet. De oorspronkelijke reden van auto’s is individuele vrijheid. Dus er is geen ratio die jou vertelt waarom je niet in de trein moet gaan zitten, maar toch pakt iedereen de auto. De mens is niet rationeel. Dus dat gevoel van vrijheid en expressiviteit blijft altijd bestaan.

Is autobezit daarvoor echt een vereiste, of kan autogebruik ook al die behoeftes vervullen?

Ik denk autogebruik niet, want dan is die auto niet van jou. En daar zit een soort waardegevoel bij. Staat de auto op jouw radiozender, is het jouw kleur, etc. Dat zijn al die typische Alfa rijders, Skoda rijders en Jaguar rijders. Die hebben allemaal iets met een bepaalde auto en dat is de essentie van autobezit. En er moet wel heel veel veranderen voordat dat doorbroken wordt.

Welke trend ziet u sneller groot worden: autodelen of elektrisch rijden?

Autodelen denk ik. De eerste elektrische auto is van 1896 dus wat dat betreft is er ook niets nieuws. Ons collectief geloof dat elektriciteit en elektrisch rijden duurzamer is, daarvan zie je nu wel dat dat wat lastiger wordt. En infrastructureel krijg je het nu ook nog niet voor elkaar. Qua duurzaamheid is het nog niet duurzaam genoeg (waar komt de stroom vandaan) en waar komt de batterij vandaan. De radius is ook nog veel te klein. We zitten op dit moment nog veel te weinig in groene elektriciteit, dus op dit moment is het nog helemaal niet zo groen. Gemeentes kunnen het ook niet meer volhouden, subsidies van de staat stoppen. Dus ik geloof daar niet zo in.

Voor Qpark is elektrisch rijden op dit moment totaal nog niet economisch haalbaar om te faciliteren. Er is niks op te verdienen voor ons.

123

Bij autodelen zie ik dat veel beter gebeuren omdat er altijd nog een andere partij bij is

die de controle kan uitvoeren. Daardoor wordt het voor Qpark makkelijker om

daarmee in zee te gaan. Het kost ons weinig.

Als we het hebben over duurzaamheid dan ligt voor Qpark de mogelijkheid niet bij

elektrisch rijden of autodelen. Onze winst is vooral te behalen bij het rondrijden voor

een parkeerplek. Als wij iedereen in een rechte lijn zo naar een parkeerplek kunnen

dirigeren, dus zonder omrijden, dan zouden we bij wijze van spreken allemaal in

Hummers rond kunnen rijden. Dat is waar wij kunnen bijdragen aan het probleem. Nu

zoeken mensen ruim 8 minuten naar een parkeerplek gemiddeld.

Wat zijn de belangrijkste pijlers waarmee Qpark kan bijdragen aan de

verkeersproblematiek in de Randstad?

De eerste is prijsbeleid. Wat moet een P&R aan de rand kosten, wat moet een

parkeerplek onder het Museumplein kosten. Daar kun je gedrag mee sturen. Hoe

vaker iemand ergens moet staan, hoe groter de kans is dat ‘ie toch de afweging maakt

om op een goedkopere plek, iets verder weg, te gaan staan. Daar is veel winst te

behalen.

De tweede is informatie. Als wij op het goede moment iemand kunnen melden hoeveel een plek kost, en hoeveel plekken er nog zijn, scheelt dat enorm veel rondrijden. De moeilijkheid zit erin dat we geen app mogen gebruiken voor op je mobiele telefoon omdat rijden en telefoongebruik niet samen gaan. Dat proberen we dus via het navigatieprobleem. Maar dat moet dan ook allemaal met spraakbesturing, dus dat is wel wat lastig. 124

V. Interview Jan Voskamp

Feiten:

1. Jan Voskamp heeft deel uitgemaakt van twee maatschappen om een auto te delen.

2. De eerste maatschap, Automaten, werd door iemand anders geïnitieerd en was bedoeld om met collega’s van Werkgroep 2000 een auto de delen. Jan Voskamp heeft ongeveer een jaar deel uitgemaakt van deze maatschap, waarna na goed overleg de maatschap gesplitst werd en Jan Voskamp deel uit ging maken van een tweede maatschap.

3. De tweede maatschap, Automaten 2, werd door Jan Voskamp geïnitieerd en was bedoeld om met families in dezelfde straat een auto te delen. Deze maatschap heeft ruim 10 jaar bestaan, waarin 3 verschillende auto’s zijn gedeeld.

Wat was de reden dat jullie een auto gingen delen met andere gezinnen?

De reden was dat we allemaal mensen waren die we direct of indirect kenden. We werkten in Amersfoort, maar hadden voor woon/werkverkeer geen auto nodig. Maar we hadden allemaal weleens een auto nodig om op familiebezoek te gaan of zware voorwerpen te vervoeren. Toen ontstond het idee om gezamenlijk een auto te gebruiken. Iemand had al een auto, maar die kon hem financieel niet alleen houden, dus toen is het idee ontstaan om zo’n maatschap op te richten en de auto de delen. Dat was op 8 december 1987.

125

Hoe spraken jullie af wie de auto mocht gebruiken op momenten dat iedereen dat wilde, zoals met de zomervakantie of met kerst?

Zomervakantie: We hadden voor de zomervakantie een regeling waarbij we probeerden om twee gezinnen de auto te laten gebruiken per vakantie. Dus de eerste drie weken nam gezin 1 hem mee, en de drie weken daarna kon gezin 2 hem gebruiken. Gezin 3 wist van tevoren dat ze niet over de auto konden beschikken en moesten een auto huren, of met het vliegtuig op vakantie gaan. En het jaar daarop draaiden de rollen door. Wij huurden meestal een auto en dat ging vrij goed. Dat heeft nooit problemen opgeleverd.

Kerst: Ja dat ging altijd wel goed.

Waarom zijn jullie uiteindelijk gestopt met het delen van auto’s?

Ik denk dat de reden was dat een van de maten een andere baan kreeg en daar een leaseauto bij kreeg. Dus zij stapten uit de maatschap. Wij hebben hem toen nog even met het andere gezin gedeeld.

Hoe regelden jullie de oprichting van de maatschap? Wie bepaalde de regels?

Hebben jullie hulp gezocht bij de Vereniging Gedeeld Autogebruik?

We hebben gezamenlijk een regelement opgesteld (zie bijlage) en daarin hebben we gewoon alles vastgelegd. Maar we hebben geen hulp gehad daarbij. Het is ook geen formele maatschap in de zin van de wet. Al die artikelen hebben we met elkaar uit de duim gezogen. We vonden wel dat we het goed moesten regelen want het is bezit dat je deelt. We hebben bijvoorbeeld een kilometerprijs vastgelegd van tevoren, 35 cent per afgelegde kilometer. En voor de vakantie was een afzonderlijke regeling, namelijk alleen een kilometerprijs voor de eerste 500 km. En tanken regelden we met een 126

schriftje in een dashboardkastje. Dus je schreef de kilometerstand op en aan het eind van de rit ook weer de kilometerstand. En als je getankt had, deed je het bonnetje in een envelop daarnaast en aan het eind van de maand verrekenden we dat. En dat ging altijd goed. En we hadden daarvoor een Postbankrekening geopend en daarop stortte iedereen het verschuldigde bedrag: kilometerprijs – benzine.

En hoe werkte dat met de verzekering?

Een iemand had de verzekering. En eigenlijk is de vraag of we daar goed over hebben nagedacht. Ik denk wel dat we dat hebben aangegeven bij de verzekering. Maar er is nooit wat gebeurd, dus ik weet niet zeker of alles wel helemaal goed geregeld was.

Het ergste dat we hebben gehad was een lekke band, maar die was toch niet verzekerd. Dus die hebben we gewoon met z’n allen betaald, ongeacht wie dan die schade reed. Alleen bij grove nalatigheid deelden we het niet. Dus als je hem dronken in de sloot rijdt, dan ben je wel persoonlijk aansprakelijk (zie regelement).

En nooit problemen gehad dat je vaak misgreep bij de auto?

Nee, dat kon je van tevoren plannen in een agenda. En als je hem plotseling toch ineens nodig had was daar altijd wel over te praten. Het was ook een vriendengroepje dus daar kwam je altijd wel uit. En we hadden volgens mij allemaal een sleutel. Dat was vroeger natuurlijk veel makkelijker, tegenwoordig zijn sleutels veel duurder.

En bij de tweede maatschap was dat nog veel minder, want daar stond de auto voor iedereen voor de deur want we woonden in dezelfde straat. Bij de eerste maatschap was dat soms lastiger, want we woonden wel allemaal in Amersfoort, maar dan moest je toch soms op je fiets rijden om bij de auto te komen. Dus dat bij elkaar in de straat 127

wonen was wel een grote verbetering. Als je hem nodig had voor boodschappen, wachtte je gewoon een uurtje en dan stond ‘ie er weer.

Hebben jullie weleens geprobeerd om de maatschap uit te breiden en extra auto’s erbij te nemen, zodat de kans groter is dat er een auto staat?

Nee. Want het enige moment waarop dat nodig was, was in de zomervakantie. En daar hadden we de regeling voor die eigenlijk prima werkte. Soms moest je dan een auto huren, maar dat is ook niet zo’n probleem. Misschien dat we weleens met kerst een auto hebben gehuurd, maar dat zou ik zo niet weten.

Als je kijkt naar de nieuwe initiatieven die nu bestaan zoals, Car2Go,

Greenwheels en Snappcar, zou je dan voor een van deze initiatieven kiezen, of nog steeds voor de maatschap?

Dit kies je omdat het betrouwbaar is, in de zin van dat je de mensen kent. Want het zijn collega’s van je. En zo’n systeem is meer anoniem. En het is ons toen een beetje in de schoot geworpen, want iemand anders had het bedacht en het was op dat moment een goede optie. En we hebben er over nagedacht om het opnieuw te doen, maar ik denk dat we het dan gewoon op de oude manier doen want dat heeft altijd prima gewerkt. Ook omdat ik het liever zou doen met iemand die ik ken.

Het is natuurlijk wel moeilijk om te achterhalen wie een bekeuring heeft gereden of niet?

Ja dat is wel zo. Soms heb je zelfs nu weleens discussies thuis. Dat zou een nadeel kunnen zijn.

128

Hoe besloten jullie welke auto jullie gingen kopen?

We hebben gekeken naar de grootte. Want we hadden alle 3 kinderen. We hadden ook

standaard een babystoel erin. We begonnen met een Golf, en daarna hebben we

besloten om een iets grotere, zwaardere en betrouwbaardere auto te nemen. En toen

werd het een diesel. Dat was een grote zware Ford.

Hebben jullie nooit gemist dat je je eigen auto had? En dat ie altijd te gebruiken is.

Nee. Die tweede maatschap compenseerde ook dat je hem altijd in de straat had staan.

Dus je kon hem altijd pakken als je hem nodig had. En anders wachtte je gewoon

even. Dat was een stuk fijner dan die eerste auto. Dan kon je ook niet zien of ‘ie er

was. Dus in plaats van een dag van tevoren reserveren kon je hem gewoon

meepakken. Maar bij die eerste waren we bijna allemaal collega’s, dus daar kon je

wel overleggen.

Hoe kwamen jullie op het idee voor de eerste maatschap?

Het was niet zo gebruikelijk toen maar Leo en Trudy hadden het bedacht, en wij

sloten ons daarbij aan.

129

VI. Interview Carole Sombroek

(aanvulling op interview met Jan Voskamp)

Hoe lang hebben jullie precies in die tweede maatschap gezeten?

We zijn begonnen in 1989 en we zijn in twee fases gestopt. Een gezin kocht een nieuwe auto voor zichzelf en die zijn er toen uitgestapt. Wij zijn misschien maar een half jaartje doorgegaan. Totdat Peter werd geboren en dat was in 1997. Dus dat is zo’n 9 jaar. En de eerste is maar een jaar geweest, dus in totaal hebben we 10 jaar een auto gedeeld.

Hoe waren jouw ervaringen met het autodelen. Kwam het altijd goed uit of greep je vaak naast de auto?

Nee dat ging best goed. Ik had ook pas een rijbewijs in 1990 dus het allereerste jaar reed ik niet. Dus het ging altijd heel goed maar dat had wel een aantal redenen:

- Niemand had de auto voor z’n werk nodig. Iedereen werkte in dezelfde stad als waar we woonden. - We hadden een vrij strenge afspraak met de vakanties. Zodat 2 van de 3 stellen de auto mee konden nemen op vakantie. En dat verrekenden we niet, want je kon zelf kiezen wat je wilde huren of dat je bijvoorbeeld het vliegtuig nam. - Het was een simpel systeem met een boekje en een agenda. En in de agenda kon je reserveren. - Twee van de drie stellen hadden alle 4 een OV Jaarkaart want die kregen we van het werk. Dus dat was gratis. Daardoor maakten we wel een afweging want de trein kostte ons niks. Dus we waren redelijk selectief wanneer we de auto gebruikten want dat kostte ons wel 40 cent per kilometer. - Hij stond in de straat waardoor je hem niet altijd hoefde te reserveren. Als ik zag dat ie er gewoon stond, kon ik hem gewoon pakken. Dat was bij de eerste maatschap natuurlijk veel lastiger. En hij stond ook op onze oprit.

130

En hoeveel werd de auto nou gebruikt?

Relatief weinig want hij werd vooral in het weekend gebruikt. En ik gebruikte hem weleens om Nike naar zwemles te brengen op woensdag middag maar het waren allemaal relatief korte ritten. Dus alle 3 de gezinnen hadden de auto uitzonderlijk weinig nodig en daardoor was het ook een goed idee om hem te delen.

En hoe regelden jullie dat als jullie een nieuwe auto kocht?

We betaalden elke maand altijd iets teveel, waardoor er aan het eind van het jaar bijna altijd een overschot was. De helft daarvan betaalden we weer uit, en de andere helft hielden we meestal op de rekening zodat we daar onvoorziene uitgaven mee konden dekken en bijv. een deel van een nieuwe auto konden kopen.

Zou je het opnieuw doen, en zo ja, hoe zou je het administratieve gedeelte dan regelen?

Ja ik zou het zo weer opnieuw doen. Op dezelfde manier. En het administratieve gedeelte was echt geen punt. Wil deed dat en die deed dat met heel veel plezier en die vertrouwden we blindelings en die kwam eens in de zoveel tijd met een overzichtje en dat klopte altijd. Ik kan me wel voorstellen dat als je ook je auto wilt delen met mensen die je niet kent dat je eerder denkt dat een onafhankelijk iemand misschien iets kan toevoegen. Wij kenden elkaar natuurlijk allemaal dus we vertrouwden elkaar.

Dus je zou je auto niet willen delen met mensen die je niet kent?

Nou belangrijker: ik zou het alleen met mensen uit de buurt willen doen. Want het was heel gemakkelijk dat de auto in de buurt stond. Want ik heb nu collega’s die het ook doen via bijvoorbeeld Greenwheels, maar die moeten hem altijd eerst ophalen. En 131

om nou met een kind van twee en van vijf een kwartier op de fiets te gaan om je auto op te halen, dat werkt denk ik minder. Dat is meer een soort huurauto. En dit was echt ons gezamenlijk bezit.

Hoe waren de vaste kosten van de auto?

Die vielen erg mee. We hadden altijd geld over.

132

VII. Interview Iris Kerremans (DIVV)

Introductie:

De stadsdelen zoals ze eerst waren, met hun eigen bestuur en structuur, dat is nu weg en alles wordt steeds centraler. En omdat er nog geen centraal beleid was (-op autodelen) ben ik nu aan het inventariseren hoe de situatie voorheen was zodat we een startpunt hebben om beleid op te maken.

Ik denk dat er een hoop groei in zit, maar het zijn ook geen gouden bergen. Ik denk wel dat er nog wat groei in zit.

Hoe is Amsterdam in het verleden omgegaan met autodelen? Kun je daar iets meer over vertellen?

Het allereerste is in de jaren ’70 geweest. Dat was Luud Schimmelpennink. Hij kwam met het witte fietsen plan idee, en hij wilde dat ook met auto’s. Er zijn filmpjes op youtube van. Het zijn een soort ruimtewagentjes die door de stad reden. Er waren vier locaties en tussen die locaties kon je daar gebruik van maken. Dus dat was het allereeste begin. Maar erg minimaal dat het eigenlijk geen naam mag hebben. Dat was het eerste initiatief in Nederland. Maar het was wel als verlengde als het witte fietsenplan.

En de gemeente Amsterdam exploiteerde die auto’s?

Weet ik niet precies. Ze zijn later bij KAF terechtgekomen.

133

Maar eind jaren ’90 begon het echt met Greenwheels. Dat kreeg toen voet aan de

grond en kreeg steeds meer parkeerplekken. Zij zijn denk ik wel echt de grote

voorvechter geweest van alles dat nu kan. En juist die scheidingslijn tussen

autoverhuurders en autodelen hebben zij echt neergezet.

En heeft Greenwheels dan veel gelobbyd bij de gemeente om dat voor elkaar te

krijgen?

Ja, juist voor de parkeerplekken. Dat zijn de Autodate parkeerplekken. En daar

hebben ze wel veel voor moeten doen want je neemt met elke Greenwheels

parkeerplek een plek weg van de bewoners. En dat werd wel gestimuleerd. Later

bleek dat elke autodeelplek 3,14 gewone auto’s verving.

Dat is een heel ander getal dan wat ik eerder heb gehoord.

Het gaat echt over parkeerplekken. Maar hij moet natuurlijk zelf ook ergens staan, dus

met elke deelauto maak je gemiddeld 2,14 parkeerplekken vrij. En daar is wel heel

veel lobby voor nodig geweest. Ik weet niet precies hoe dat is gegaan. En vanaf toen

is het beleid meer naar de stadsdelen gegaan. Dus stadsdelen mochten de invulling

van het beleid maken en bepalen hoeveel procent van de parkeerplekken ze voor

‘belanghebbenden plekken’ beschikbaar wilden stellen. Dat zijn ook artsenplekken en

gehandicaptenplekken. Dat hoort daar allemaal bij. En per stadsdeel is daar heel

verschillend mee omgegaan. Zoals stadsdeel Nieuw-West heeft geen parkeerprobleem. Dus die hebben geen parkeervergunningenplafond, dus geen wachtlijst, dus die hebben altijd heel anders gekeken naar autodelen dan Stadsdeel

Centrum of stadsdeel Zuid. Stadsdeel Zuid heeft een enorme parkeerdruk. Dus in sommige stadsdelen zal die lobby veel makkelijker zijn geweest dan in andere stadsdelen.

134

En denk je dat de stadsdelen met parkeerproblemen dan juist eerder geneigd

zijn om autodelen een kans te geven, of zie je dat andersom?

Ik denk dat dat in het begin er erg om gespannen heeft. Maar dat valt of staat met het

succes. Want als het niet gebruikt wordt, haal je ze binnen no-time weer van de straat af. Dus er is wel steeds gekeken van: we staan het toe, maar wat is het gebruik en hoe reageert de buurt daarop. Want als alle bewoners gaan piepen van ik kan m’n auto niet meer kwijt, en die greenwheels auto staat steeds stil, dan wordt daar ook veel waarde aan gehecht. Dus er is altijd stap voor stap gekeken of het effect ook behaald wordt. Nu is het wel uitgegroeid tot een stuk van 800-1000 gereserveerde plekken voor autodelen. Dat is los van Car2Go. Want die hebben een stadsbrede parkeervergunning en dat betekent dat ze eigenlijk overal mogen staan. Het grote voordeel van Car2Go is dat ze autodelen en elektrisch doen, waardoor het dubbel bijdraagt aan de doelstellingen van de gemeente. En dat zijn doelstellingen over betere bereikbaarheid en leefbaarheid/luchtkwaliteit. En daar komt elektrisch rijden meteen mee op de proppen. Zij hebben een uitzondering gekregen op het huidige autodeelbeleid als een soort experiment. Dat loopt nu nog. Dat is begonnen in 2013 tot 2015 en die uitzondering houdt in dat 750 vergunningen voor stadsbreed parkeren worden uitgegeven aan elektrische deelauto’s mits ze voldoende gebruikt worden en het volledig elektrisch is. En daarvoor is ook de grens gesteld dat er maar 350 auto’s per aanbieder mogen zijn.

Waarom is die grens gesteld?

Om niemand voor te trekken. Je moet als gemeente altijd oppassen dat je niet een organisatie als lieveling beschouwt, en Car2Go heeft de kracht om steeds verder te groeien. Maar je wilt ook nieuwe dingen een kans geven, die misschien nog wel beter zijn. Om concurrentie te stimuleren. 135

Zijn er al andere aanbieders met plannen?

Greenwheels heeft wel een proef gedaan met elektrisch rijden, maar dat is mislukt omdat de gebruikers gewend zijn om naar 1 plek toe te rijden en te tanken en nu moesten ze op zoek naar een elektrische oplaadpaal, en daardoor verslechterde het gebruik.

Car2Go beloont het oplaadgedrag met gratis minuten.

Ja en Car2Go heeft erg geprofiteerd van het moment. Want de gemeente had net alle oplaadpalen neergezet en dat aantal groeit nog steeds. En de groei van Car2Go en de laadpalen is gelijk met elkaar opgelopen.

Hoe komt het dat de Gemeente Amsterdam zo voorop loopt qua autodelen (in vergelijking met de rest van Nederland)? Is de noodzaak hier hoger?

Ja de parkeerdruk is hoog en de stedelijkheid is hoog. Heel weinig mensen per vierkante kilometer. En we willen allemaal wel eens niet met de tram, fiets of bus. En daardoor is Amsterdam een goede groeikern voor autodelen. Er wonen heel veel mensen bij elkaar die gebruik kunnen maken van autodelen. En Amsterdam heeft gewoon de gok gewaagd eind jaren ’90. En door altijd de kijken of het behaalt wat we willen, hebben we niks te verliezen. Misschien dat de buurtbewoners een half jaartje boos zijn, maar dat gaat ook wel weer over. De gemeente Amsterdam is wat dat betreft misschien wel vooruitstrevend. En autodelen an sich, heeft denk ik groeipotentie landelijk als vervanger van Openbaar Vervoer. Bijvoorbeeld als de nachtbus niet meer rijdt. En in Amsterdam is het vooral de stedelijkheid die meehelpt.

En is de stedelijkheid anders in Amsterdam dan in Rotterdam of Utrecht?

Nou Rotterdam is een hele andere stad dan Amsterdam. Rotterdam is veel meer autogericht. Als je kijkt naar de brede straten en de parkeerplek, focussen zij veel meer op auto’s. Ik denk dat door de bombardementen gewoon veel ruimte vrij kwam 136

en net in die jaren ’50 – ’60, zagen ze dat auto’s de toekomst hadden. En Amsterdam is zo nauw en krap en de auto heeft eigenlijk geen ruimte. En als een parkeervergunning duur is en moeilijk is om te krijgen, ga je toch kijken of je je auto weg kunt doen en van de buurman kunt lenen. En dat is autodelen onder de radar, maar nu zijn er initiatieven die daar ook op inspringen. Dus de factoren: stedelijkheid, hoge parkeerdruk, hoge kosten, dat speelt allemaal mee.

Heb jij een idee hoe de gemeente het beleid wil gaan voortzetten?

Daar ben ik nu een startpunt voor aan het maken. En ik denk dat er zeker nog wel groei mogelijk is, maar wellicht niet op de manier waarop het nu is. Ik denk dat particulier autodelen nog heel veel potentie heeft. En daar is de vraag, wat moet de gemeente daarvoor aanbieden. Moet de gemeente iets faciliteren of zoekt de markt het zelf uit. En dat kan bij particulier delen makkelijker dan bij het klassieke delen, maar daar zal eigenlijk per vorm goed gekeken naar moeten worden.

Hoe zou de gemeente particulier autodelen kunnen stimuleren?

Bijvoorbeeld op IJburg, een hele nieuwe wijk, daar hebben ze plekken gereserveerd voor autodelen. En daar staat een Greenwheels auto, ook een Car2Go met laadpaal, maar ook eentje die bedoeld is voor particulier delen. En dan moet je nog wel met de sleutel werken, maar WeGo heeft een kastje dat je met een app de auto kunt openen.

En als je dat inbouwt in gewone auto’s kan particulier delen een stuk makkelijker gaan. Dus als de gemeente dat stimuleert en daardoor een impuls kan geven aan zo’n bedrijf, omdat het bijdraagt aan de gemeentelijke doelstellingen, dan zie ik daar wel potentie in. Maar, daarbij moet wel vermeld worden dat de gemeente niet heel happig is om geld te geven aan 1 bedrijf. Subsidies in de vorm van geld zijn sowieso een stuk moeilijker geworden. Maar door bijvoorbeeld minder parkeerplekken aan te bieden dan dat de verwachting is dat bewoners nodig hebben, dan duw je mensen eigenlijk al 137

in die richting van autodelen. Een beetje een nare manier vind ik persoonlijk, maar zo

kun je dat wel stimuleren.

Het hangt ook af van het doel. Als je als doel hebt om autodelen groter te maken, dan

kun je eigenlijk aan twee knoppen draaien: je kunt mensen verleiden of mensen er

zachtjes naartoe te duwen. Bijvoorbeeld door weinig parkeerruimte beschikbaar te

stellen. Maar dat is het doel van de gemeente niet. De gemeente wil veel meer

bereikbaarheid en leefbaarheid bevorderen. En dan moet je de afweging maken.

Wat is de trigger voor de gemeente om nu een werknemer full-time op autodelen te zetten?

Voor particulier autodelen is nu eigenlijk niks en de vraag is of daar misschien beleid voor moet komen. En dan ga je ook weer kijken naar het klassieke autodelen zoals

Green wheels. Halen we daar nog uit wat we willen of moeten we ons meer focussen op particulier autodelen. En dat is eigenlijk de reden dat ik hiermee bezig ben omdat particulier autodelen de hele verhouding opschudt. Greenwheels is niet meer de enige speler in de markt. Dus misschien dat de macht van het klassieke delen ook wel gaat afnemen. Dat is de vraag

En zie je het gebeuren dat de gemeente op een gegeven moment denkt: Wij kunnen dit zelf ook. En we maken een witte fietsenplan voor auto’s aan.

Dat zie ik niet gebeuren, want het is geen core business van de gemeente. Zolang er marktpartijen zijn doet de gemeente het liever in een goede samenwerking. Als je het zelf gaat doen biedt je uiteindelijk ook maar 1 vorm aan en juist concurrentie is goed voor de gebruiker. 138

De gemeente is zelf wel bezig met het delen van de eigen dienst auto’s onder werknemers. Die auto’s krijgen een apparaat ingebouwd van WeGo en op die manier worden die auto’s meer gedeeld met andere werknemers binnen de gemeente

Amsterdam.

Hoe denk jij dat autogebruik en autobezit over 50 jaar in Amsterdam eruit ziet?

50 jaar is heel ver weg, en dat is echt een totaal andere wereld als je dat vergelijkt met

50 jaar terug. Maar als je het in stapjes bekijkt, dan denk ik dat over 10-15 jaar autodelen zal groeien en autobezit zal afnemen. Onze generatie is veel meer van delen

(sharing economy). Gereedschap, liften, eten, film, muziek, dat geldt voor heel veel.

En auto’s ook, het is hartstikke duur, je hebt geen parkeerplek etc. Dus als je een auto kunt lenen als je hem nodig hebt dan is dat toch super.

En lenen we hem dan van onze buren of van een commerciële partij?

Ik denk beide. Dat is heel profielafhankelijk van de gebruiker. Lang niet iedereen vindt het fijn om in de auto te rijden van iemand anders (honden haren, rook etc.). Als jij heel veel waarde hecht aan elektrisch rijden ga je voor Car2Go of Snappcar en selecteren op elektrisch rijden, maar als dat je helemaal niet boeit dan zoek je gewoon de goedkoopste. En op die manier denk ik dat iedereen kiest wat hij zelf nodig heeft.

En of je dan een abonnement neemt omdat je elke week moet of maar een keer per jaar naar je oma in Zwolle gaat, dat is je eigen profiel en behoefte. En dat maakt de keuze. En daarom zijn al die opties zo belangrijk zodat iedereen een keus heeft.

En zou een organisatie zoals de GVB (Gemeentelijk Vervoers Bedrijf) dat kunnen oppakken? 139

Ja dat zou wel kunnen. De GVB valt wel onder de gemeente, maar het is wel wat meer privaat geworden. Het is voor een deel los, en deels niet. Greenwheels is bijvoorbeeld aangehaakt bij de NS, dus je kunt je reis veel verder plannen op hun site.

En zo moet je autodelen ook zien, niet alleen voor eigen particuliere ritjes, maar ook als vervanger van openbaar vervoer. Vroeger kon je alleen met de trein naar bepaalde plekken, maar nu is autodelen een alternatief geworden.

Is het een positieve ontwikkeling dat mensen vanuit het openbaar vervoer meer auto’s gaan gebruiken dmv autodelen?

Dat is een veelgehoord commentaar, en daar heb ik cijfers van: Autodelen is van invloed op de trein voor lange afstanden, maar op het openbaar vervoer eigenlijk niet.

Als je ziet hoeveel procent van de mensen die geen auto had en door een deelauto wel, die zijn minder gebruik gaan maken van het openbaar vervoer. Omdat ze nu ineens wel een auto hebben. Maar de mensen die wel een auto hadden en nu een deelauto zijn gaan gebruiken doen het er naast. Die houden het openbaar vervoer en gaan beter nadenken over wanneer ze welk vervoersmiddel willen gebruiken. En zo komen ze erachter dat openbaar vervoer een heel goed alternatief is. Dus autodelen is niet echt een vervanger, maar meer een aanvulling van openbaar vervoer. En de eigen auto is eerder een vervanger dan de deelauto.

De gemeente kan inzetten op twee mogelijkheden: elektrisch rijden of autodelen.

Hoe is de gemeente daar mee bezig?

Met beide. En Car2Go koppelt het ook nog. Je hebt binnen de gemeente programmabureau luchtkwaliteit en die houdt zich bezig met Europese normen. En op de knelpunten zie je dat daar de uitstoot te hoog is volgens de Europese normen. En elektrisch rijden kan de luchtkwaliteit verbeteren, maar dat gebeurt ook door schonere 140

vrachtwagens (aardgas) en milieuroutes. Bij de grachten van Amsterdam wordt de vracht overgeladen op elektrische boten. En dat wordt dan in het Centrum met die boot op de plek van bestemming gebracht. En elektrisch rijden wordt veel voor ingezet, en Car2Go is de perfecte koppeling. Autodelen is natuurlijk ook goed voor de luchtkwaliteit, omdat mensen meer kilometers gaan maken. En elektrisch rijden is nog een keer dubbel. Dus dat is een cadeautje voor beide partijen.

Henry Mentink van MyWheels klaagde dat de elektrische lobby veel sterker is dan de autodeel lobby.

Dat klopt wel. Het programma luchtkwaliteit heeft een grote pijler: Amsterdam

Elektrisch. En Autodelen is heel versplinterd en moet meer centraal betrokken worden. Dus dat is nu nog niet gelijkwaardig aan elkaar.

Er zijn ook bussen van de GVB die op groene stroom rijden. Dus daar worden wel grote stappen gemaakt.

Denk je dat het nog mogelijk is dat er naast Car2Go nog een aanbieder komt met hetzelfde model?

Het kan wel, maar je moet wel iets anders doen dan Car2Go nu doet. Dus beter betaalsysteem, of iets anders. Je moet je onderscheiden. Want als je hetzelfde doet, moet je meteen met minimaal zo’n 200 auto’s komen en dat is een te grote investering. Dus als daar echt iets vernieuwends in zit dan kun je dat wel voor elkaar krijgen.

En heb je zicht op dingen die Car2Go laat liggen?

141

Vind ik moeilijk om te zeggen. Ik kijk niet echt naar het business model van de

bedrijven.

Zou je het zelf gebruiken?

Nou mijn vriend heeft een auto, dus ik kan die lenen als het nodig is. Maar anders zou

ik het wel doen. Ik weet niet welke vorm ik zou nemen. Voor alle 3, klassiek,

elektrisch of particulier is wel iets te zeggen. Maar ook nadelen.

Heb je een idee hoe gemeentes met elkaar het autobeleid afstemmen?

Laatst is er een congress achtig overleg geweest tussen Randstad steden in Utrecht bij

de KPVV (CAOW?). En juist het idee van we moeten de kennis die we hebben delen

was de reden. Zodat je niet steeds het wiel opnieuw hoeft uit te vinden. Maar het is moeilijk om te vergelijken omdat elke stad zo verschillend is. Utrecht is bijvoorbeeld druk in de binnenstad en daar kun je niet komen met de auto. En Car2Go is heel goed in de binnenstedelijke kilometers en dat heeft in Utrecht dus weinig zin. Want de singels kun je niet rijden. En het is makkelijker fietsbaar. Dus dat is niet vergelijkbaar met Amsterdam.

Delft heeft laatst een nieuw beleid opgesteld over particulier delen en dat zit heel goed in elkaar. Maar omdat zij geen vergunningen plafond hebben (in Amsterdam mag me maar maximaal 1 auto op je naam hebben staan), is het lastig te vergelijken.

Is het eigenlijk niet raar dat je in Amsterdam overal met de auto mag komen?

Zelfs op de Dam? In andere steden is dat veel minder.

Misschien heeft dat wel iets met de dichtheid te maken. Want anders zou je het oude centrum (binnen de singel) autovrij moeten maken en dat is niet haalbaar. Touring car bussen moeten daar komen natuurlijk. Maar het is wel apart ja. En er wonen ook 142

mensen. Ook op de grachten. Er is wel veel eenrichtingsverkeer om het enigszins in toom te houden, maar voor zover ik weet zijn er geen plannen om daar iets aan te doen.

Dus autodelen is dan wel een van de belangrijkste opties om autogebruik in de binnenstad terug te dringen?

Nou er wordt ook ingezet op ring parkeren, dus zet je je auto in een parkeergarage bij de Ring en dan krijg je een vergoeding om de stad in te komen met het OV. En dubbelgebruik van parkeergarages. Veel garages worden gebruikt door dagjesmensen en toeristen, en ’s avonds weer weg gaan. En dan staan ze leeg. Dus sinds een jaar worden die garages voor bewoners beschikbaar gesteld. Dus huidige bewoners die daar wonen met een parkeervergunning krijgen dan een plek in de garage.

En wat gebeurt er met de oude plekken?

Dat ligt eraan wat je wilt bereiken. Wil je meer parkeerplekken creëren of wil je dat de openbare ruimte toegankelijker wordt. Als je dat laatste wilt bereiken krijg je met dit soort initiatieven de auto van de straat en dan kun je met de vrijgekomen ruimte iets doen. Fiets parkeerplekken, groenstroken of speeltoestellen voor kinderen. Maar dat hangt af van je doelstellingen.

Maar Car2go kan door die cap van 350 auto’s nooit uitgroeien tot een monopolie partij. Dus dat is voor andere bedrijven wel een kans.

Dat elektrisch rijden met een stadsbrede parkeervergunning is een pilot. Een uitzondering op de regel met een bepaalde einddatum (eind 2015). Maar daarbinnen is ook nog wel een mogelijkheid, stel er komt dus een tweede, derde of vierde bedrijf, en 750 blijkt te weinig voor de markt om iets te kunnen. 143

Waarom is die cap van 750 er?

Dat is omdat ze eigenlijk overal kunnen parkeren en daardoor in elk gebied de parkeerdruk kan stijgen. En dat wil je stap voor stap bekijken of het doet wat we willen en of we verder moeten. Dus we zijn steeds aan het evalueren.

En wat gebeurt er na 2015?

Ik denk niet dat het stopt. De pilot kan verlengd worden of het kan worden opgenomen in het huidige parkeerbeleid. Omdat het bijvoorbeeld een succes is gebleken en we er verder mee willen. Maar we kunnen er ook nog vanaf willen, maar dat acht ik niet zo groot.

De tussentijdse evaluatie was wel positief.

Ja klopt, Car2Go was niet zo blij dat die evaluatie naar buiten kwam omdat dat natuurlijk hun successen en zwaktes aangaf. En dat is interessant voor andere partijen.

144

VIII. Maatschapsovereenkomst ‘Automaten’

145

146

147